#Tal Becker

[plitnick]

Cutting Through: Breaking Down Israel's Defense At The ICJ

In the latest edition of the Cutting Through newsletter, I take a deep dive into Israel’s defense against charges of genocide at the International Court of Justice. I examine their claims and whether any of their arguments might serve to sway the court. Check it out, and share the newsletter and help it grow!

[localcryptic]

meet the sidesteps (customizes their tattoo designs to match their personalities)

[b33tlejules]

behold. a semi-complete chart of the relationship dynamics between mine and @localcryptic 's sidesteps.

Key:

Red is for malicious intent, Green is for familial bond, Light blue is peace on earth, Teal is for ambivalent/no strong opinion, Pink is love and Purple is lust.

[rune-echos]

Shadow of a Demon Act 2

Our Shadow of a Demon plot line is not also progressing into Act 2! This is the plot where demons invade Chicago. Below is a summary of the story so far. Act 1 – Initial Attack Victoria, Po, Abigail, and Susan Victoria’s leadership and strategic acumen are evident throughout the story. She quickly adapts to the unfolding crisis, utilizing her knowledge of blood magic to both attack and…

[beta-lactam-allergic]

S. Africa genocide case is 'a libel,' aimed 'to deny Israel the right to defend itself' - The Times of Israel

S. Africa genocide case is 'a libel,' aimed 'to deny Israel the right to defend itself'

[theculturedmarxist]

As with the South African case, according to court procedure the Israeli case was introduced on Friday by their “agent”, permanently accredited to the court, Tal Becker of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He opened with the standard formula “it is an honour to appear before you again on behalf of the state of Israel”, managing to imply purely through phrasing and tone of voice that the honour lay in representing Israel, not in appearing before the judges.

Becker opened by going straight to the Holocaust, saying that nobody knew more than Israel why the Genocide Convention existed. Six million Jewish people had been killed. The Convention was not to be used to cover the normal brutality of war.

The South African case aimed at the delegitimisation of the state of Israel, he said. On Oct. 7 Hamas had committed massacre, mutilation, rape and abduction. 1,200 had been killed and 5,500 maimed. He related several hideous individual atrocity stories and played a recording he stated to be a Hamas fighter boasting on WhatsApp to his parents about committing mass murder, rape and mutilation.

The only genocide in this case was being committed against Israel. Hamas continued to attack Israel, and for the court to take provisional measures would be to deny Israel the right to self-defence.

Provisional measures should rather be taken against South Africa and its attempt by legal means to further genocide by its relationship with Hamas. Gaza was not under occupation: Israel had left it with great potential to be a political and economic success. Instead Hamas had chosen to make it a terrorist base.

Hamas was embedded in the civilian population and therefore responsible for the civilian deaths. Hamas had tunnels under schools, hospitals, mosques and U.N. facilities and tunnel entrances within them. It commandeered medical vehicles for military use.

South Africa had talked of civilian buildings destroyed, but did not tell you they had been destroyed by Hamas booby traps and Hamas missile misfires.

The casualty figures South Africa gave were from Hamas sources and not reliable. They did not say how many were fighters? How many of the children were child soldiers? The application by South Africa was ill-founded and ill-motivated. It was a libel.

This certainly was a hardline and uncompromising start. The judges appeared to be paying very close attention when he opened with the Oct. 7 self-defence argument, but very definitely some of them started to fidget and become uncomfortable when he talked of Hamas operating from ambulances and U.N. facilities. In short, he went too far and I believe he lost his audience at that point.

Next up was Professor Malcolm Shaw KC. Shaw is regarded as an authority on the procedure of international law and is editor of the standard tome on the subject. This is an interesting facet of the legal profession, where standard reference books on particular topics are regularly updated to include key extracts from recent judges, and passages added or amended to explain the impact of these judgments. Being an editor in this field provides a route to prominence for the plodding and pedantic.

I had come across Shaw in his capacity as a co-founder of the Centre for Human Rights at Essex University. I had given a couple of talks there some twenty years ago on the attacks on human rights of the “War on Terror” and my own whistleblower experience over torture and extraordinary rendition. For an alleged human rights expert, Shaw seemed extraordinarily prone to support the national security interests of the state over individual liberty.

I do not pretend I gave it a great deal of thought. I did not know at that time of Shaw’s commitment as an extreme Zionist and in particular his long term interest in suppressing the rights of the Palestinian people.

After 139 states have recognised Palestine as a state, Shaw led for Israel the legal opposition to Palestine’s membership of international institutions, including the International Criminal Court. Shaw’s rather uninspired reliance on the Montevideo Convention of 1933 is hardly a legal tour de force, and it didn’t work.

Every criminal deserves a defence, and nobody should hold it against a barrister that they defend a murderer or rapist, as it is important that guilt or innocence is tested by a court. But I think it is fair to state that defence lawyers do not in general defend those accused of murder because they agree with murder and want a murderer to go on murdering.

That however is the case here: Malcolm Shaw speaks for Israel because he actually wants Israel to be able to continue killing Palestinian women and children to improve the security of Israel, in his view.

That is the difference between this and other cases, including at the ICJ. Generally the lead lawyers would happily swap sides, if the other side had hired them first. But this is entirely different.

Here the lawyers (with the possible exception of Christopher Straker KC, an other attorney who represented Israel on Friday) believe profoundly in the case they are supporting and would never appear for the other side. That is just one more way that this is such an extraordinary case, with so much drama and such vital consequences, not least for the future of international law.

For the reason I have just explained, Shaw’s role here is not that of a simple barrister plying his trade. His attempt to extend the killing should see him viewed as a pariah by decent people everywhere, for the rest of his doubtless highly-paid existence.

Shaw opened up by saying that the South African case continually spoke of context. They talked of the 75 years of the existence of the state of Israel. Why stop there? Why not go back to the Balfour Declaration or the British Mandate over Palestine?

No, the context of these events was the massacre of Oct. 7, and Israel’s subsequent right of self-defence. He produced and read a long quote from mid-October by European Commission President Ursula von Der Leyen, stating that Israel had suffered a terrorist atrocity and had the right of self-defence.

The truth is that this is not genocide but armed conflict, which state has existed since Oct. 7, he said. That was brutal, and urban warfare always involved terrible civilian casualties, but it was not genocide.

He then turned to the question of genocide. He argued that South Africa could not bring this case and the ICJ had no jurisdiction, because there was no dispute between Israel and South Africa on which the ICJ could rule, at the time the case was filed.

South Africa had communicated its views to Israel, but Israel had given no substantial reply. Therefore a dispute did not yet exist at time of filing. A dispute must involve interaction between parties and the argument had been on one side only.

This very much interested the judges. As I noted on day one, this got them more active than anything else when Professor John Dugard addressed the same point for South Africa. As I reported:

“The judges particularly enjoyed Dugard’s points, enthusiastically rustling through documents and underlining things. Dealing with thousands of dead children was a bit difficult for them, but give them a nice jurisdictional point and they were in their element.”

They were even more excited when Shaw tackled the same point. This gave them a way out! The case could be technically invalid, and then they would neither have to upset the major Western powers nor make fools of themselves by pretending that a genocide the whole world had seen was not happening. For a while, they looked visibly relieved.

Shaw should have given up while he was ahead, but he ploughed on for an hour, with some relief when he continually muddled his notes. A senior KC with zero ability to extemporise and recover was an interesting sight, as he kept stopping and shuffling paper.

Shaw argued that the bar for judging whether South Africa had a prima facie case must be significantly higher because of the high military and political cost to Israel if the court adopted provisional measures.

It was also necessary to show genocidal intent even at this stage. Otherwise the genocide was a “car without an engine”. If any illegal actions had taken place within Israel’s carefully targeted military action, Israel’s own military courts would investigate and act on them.

Random Israeli ministers and officials making emotional statements was not important. Official policy to protect civilians would be found in the minutes of the Israeli war cabinet and national security council. Israel’s strenuous attempts to move civilians out of harm’s way was an accepted measure in international human law and should not be viewed as mass displacement.

It was South Africa which was guilty of complicity in genocide in cooperation with Hamas. South Africa’s allegations against Israel “verge on the outrageous”.

Israel’s next lawyer was a lady called Galit Raguan from the Israeli Ministry of Justice. She said the reality on the ground was that Israel had done everything possible to minimise civilian deaths and to aid humanitarian relief. Urban warfare always resulted in civilian deaths. It was Hamas who were responsible for destruction of buildings and infrastructure.

There was overwhelming evidence of Hamas’ military use of hospitals. In every single hospital in Gaza the IDF had evidence of military use by Hamas. Mass evacuation of civilians was a humanitarian and legal measure. Israel had supplied food, water and medicine into Gaza but supplies had come under Hamas fire. Hamas steals the aid for its fighters.

Next up was lawyer Omri Sender. He stated that more food trucks per day now entered Gaza than before Oct. 7. The number had increased from 70 food trucks to 109 food trucks per day. Fuel, gas and electricity were all being supplied and Israel had repaired the sewage systems.

At this stage Israel had again lost the judges. One or two were looking at this man in a highly quizzical manner. A couple had definitely fallen asleep – there are only so many lies you can absorb, I suppose. Nobody was making notes about this guff.

The judges may find a way not to condemn Israel, but could not be expected to go along with this extraordinary nonsense. Sender continued that the scope and intensity of the fighting was now decreasing as the operation entered a new phase.

Perhaps noting that nobody believed him, Sender stated that the court could not institute provisional measures but rather was obliged to accept the word of Israel on its good intentions because of the Law of the Unilateral Declarations of States.

Now I have to confess that was a bit of international law I did not know existed. But it does, specifically in relation to ICJ proceedings. On first reading, it makes a unilateral declaration of intent to the ICJ binding on the state that makes it.

I cannot see that it forces the ICJ to accept it as sufficient or to believe in its sincerity. It seems rather a reach, and I wondered if Israel was running out of things to say.

That appeared to be true, because the next speaker, Christopher Straker, now took the floor and just ran through all the same Hamas stuff yet again, only with added theatrical indignation. Straker is the lawyer I suspect would happily have appeared for either side, because he was plainly just acting anyway. And not very well.

Straker said that it was astounding this case could be brought. It was intended to stop Israel from defending itself while Israel would still be subject to Hamas attacks. Hamas has said it will continue attacks.

If you look at the operation as a whole including relief efforts, it was plain there was no genocidal intent. Israel was in incredible danger. The proposed provisional measures were out of proportion to their effect.

Can you imagine if in the Second World War, a court had ordered the Allies to stop fighting because of civilian deaths, and allowed the Axis powers to keep on killing?

The final speaker was Gilad Noam, Israel’s deputy attorney-general. He said that the bulk of the proposed provisional measures should be refused because they exposed Israel to further Hamas attack. Three more should be refused because they referred to Palestine outside Gaza.

There was no genocidal intent in Israel. Ministerial and official statements made in the heat of the moment were rather examples of the tradition of democracy and freedom of speech. Prosecutions for incitement to genocide were under consideration.

The court must not conflate genocide and self-defence. The South African case devalues genocide and encourages terrorism. The Holocaust illustrated why Israel was always under existential threat. It was Hamas who were committing genocide.

And that was it. Israel had in the end not been allowed to show its contentious atrocity video, and it felt like their presentation had become repetitive and was padded to fill the time.

It is important to realise this. Israel is hoping to win on their procedural points about existence of dispute, unilateral assurances and jurisdiction. The obvious nonsense they spoke about the damage to homes and infrastructure being caused by Hamas, trucks entering Gaza and casualty figures, was not serious. They did not expect the judges to believe any of this. The procedural points were for the court. The rest was mass propaganda for the media.

In the U.K., the BBC and Sky both ran almost all the Israeli case live, having not run any of the South African case live. I believe something similar was true in the USA, Australia and Germany too.

While the court was in session, Germany has announced it will intervene in the substantial case to support Israel. They argue explicitly that, as the world’s greatest perpetrator of genocide, they are uniquely placed to judge. It is in effect a copyright claim. They are protecting Germany’s intellectual property in the art of genocide. Perhaps they might in future license genocide, or allow Israel to continue genocide on a franchise basis.

I am sure the judges want to get out of this and they may go for the procedural points. But there is a real problem with Israel’s “no dispute” argument. If accepted, it would mean that a country committing genocide can simply not reply to a challenge, and then legal action will not be possible because no reply means “no dispute”. I hope that absurdity is obvious to the judges. But they may of course wish not to notice it…

What do I think will happen? Some sort of “compromise”. The judges will issue provisional measures different to South Africa’s request, asking Israel to continue to take measures to protect the civilian population, or some such guff. Doubtless the State Department have drafted something like this for the president of the court, the American Joan Donoghue already.

I hope I am wrong. I would hate to give up on international law. One thing I do know for certain. These two days in The Hague were absolutely crucial for deciding if there is any meaning left in notions of international law and human rights.

I still believe action by the court could cause the U.S. and U.K. to back off and provide some measure of relief. For now, let us all pray or wish, each in our way, for the children of Gaza.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. His coverage is entirely dependent on reader support. Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

[euphorial-docx]

if you’re wondering how the icj trial is going, tal becker, a representative of israel, said south africa has connections to hamas. so they essentially just called south africa hamas.

hospitals are hamas, children are hamas, schools are hamas, ambulances are hamas, evacuating civilians are hamas, and now entire world-leading governments are hamas. everyone israel doesn’t like are hamas.

[awxareness]

This caught my attention:

Two other sources have reported this. The Israeli times:

And Barron’s:

I’ve never heard of Barron’s. But theirs and AP’s wording doesn’t seem to be particularly biased? I am familiar with AP, they tend to report straight facts without using biased language.

I will look to see if Germany has officially entered the proceedings in the next 24-48 hours.

A number of articles have stated Germany’s position on the case, but these are the three I found in my Google search that have said Germany intends to intervene.

[giucomix]

Im gonna keep it real with you, Tal Becker, legal adviser of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs: making "it doesn't matter what we're doing because it's self-defense" your first argument will not convince me you're not committing genocide

[nauticofv]

Ateo en el nombre de Cristo (parte 2)

EL NUEVO TESTAMENTO

Dicen que cristo es Dios hecho carne, pero es todo lo contrario, él es la carne que se supo Dios. Era un absoluto don nadie: un judío pobre, nacido en un pesebre, bajo el yugo del Imperio Romano, heredero de un pueblo derrotado y que vivía esperando un Mesías o un rey guerrero que derrotara a Roma y le devolviera a su pueblo su antiguo esplendor.

Cristo no era ni rey ni guerrero, pero leía; y leyendo, se enteró de todo lo que sus antepasados ya sabían. Y luego se fue al desierto a averiguar que se equivocaban: ni Dios ni el pueblo elegido existen, el reino perfecto es imposible, el Mesías es quien sea que tenga el valor de serlo, y la realidad... bueno, el mundo si es hevel, pero a la vez no. “Yisus” era bien punk, luego de resistir las tentaciones del cuerpo, descubrió en la agonía del desierto una solución para ese miedo primordial con el que nacemos todos los seres humanos: el miedo a la muerte.

Como escribe Ernest Becker “ése es el terror: haber nacido por nada, tener un nombre, conciencia de uno mismo, profundos sentimientos internos, una excruciante necesidad de vivir y expresarse... y con todo esto, morir. Parece una estafa ¿qué clase de deidad haría tan compleja y deliciosa comida para gusanos?” Pero, qué tal que estos gusanos fertilizan la tierra, a donde nacen las plantas, que se comen los animales, que después cazamos, y en este ciclo de vida y muerte nada se pierde.

¿Cómo descubrió Cristo que era el hijo de dios? probablemente tuvo un momento de iluminación, un instante de conciencia cósmica; en el hinduismo le llaman Nirvana, en el budismo Zen le llaman Satori, Sigmund Freud le llamaba “sentimiento oceánico”. Y es el estado de conciencia de un niño antes de desarrollar el yo, es lo que ocurre cuando se disuelven las barreras entre tu ego y el mundo a tú alrededor; cuando descubres el universo como un proceso orgánico, interdependiente, del que no estás separado, tú eres parte de este proceso.

El razonamiento de Cristo era muy simple: si este principio unificador está en todas partes... entonces, también está en mí; pero, si está en mí, no me hizo... soy; pero, si yo soy... entonces, también tú; y si tú también eres, y si todos somos... entonces yo soy tú; pero en esta vida, y tú eres yo, pero en aquella sin importar quién seas: el prójimo «que le llaman».

«Y mira» Cristo no sabía qué hace 14 mil millones de años antes del tiempo, antes del espacio; tu materia, la suya, y la mía, estaban condensadas dentro de un puntito infinitamente pequeño, que se expandió y creó el hidrógeno de las estrellas, en cuyos vientres se cocinaron los elementos que nos darían vida. Él no vio cosmos, pero viendo dentro de sí mismo, adivinó que él era el hijo de Dios y... ojalá hubiera leído más teología, para darle un título menos pomposo: “hijo de Dios” «¡viejo payaso!».

Se hubiera enterado de que los Upanishads, miles de años atrás, el hinduismo ya se había escrito que: “todos somos hijos de Dios” pero no usan la palabra “Dios”, ellos usan “Bráhman” que no es un creador y un patriarca, es el Alma Universal, el Actor Cósmico, que actúa a cada papel en el universo, y que interpreta a ti, y juega a ser yo, y al hacerse pasar por todos, todos compartimos un alma «muy bonito».

O se habría enterado del Tao, que es la Sustancia Eterna del Universo, sin rostro, sin autoridad, pero que fluye en nuestro interior; y aún, sin actuar a través de él, todo se hace. O se habría enterado del Shuniáta, que según el budismo mahayana, es la Nada: la absoluta nada de la que todo emerge; y que crea estructuras tan complicadas, que en sus puntitos más diminutos creen tener consciencia, pero al final no hay un algo que posea una esencia individual, todo viene de la nada.

«Bueno»,se hubiera esperado dos mil años para enterarse de que. fuera del planeta lo que percibimos como espacio vacío, es en realidad campos de fluctuación cuántica en perfecto equilibrio; pero que, el ser excitados crean 17 partículas elementales que componen toda la realidad que podemos percibir “el Modelo Estándar”, «que le llaman».

Pero “Yisus” sólo tenía la mano la teología judía, y la única metáfora con la que pudo expresar su descubrimiento fue: el hijo de Dios, pero no solo él era el hijo de Dios, todos lo somos «¡y yo sé!, suena como magia hippie», pero creo que podemos concederle un punto a Cristo. Que si yo tuviera tu vida: tus padres, tu educación, tus memorias y cada una de tus experiencias, yo sería idéntico a ti «quizá más bajito»; y si tú hubieras tenido mi vida, me temo que serías tú el que cree en estas ideas. Yo soy tú en esta vida, y tú eres yo en aquella, seas quien seas.

Y aunque no le creamos a su teología, mucha gente si le creyó; y eso tuvo consecuencias políticas muy graves, porque «mira» este señor también decía ser hijo de Dios, pero él solito, porque él no era un judío pobre de Belén: él era César Augusto, emperador de Roma. Un día le llevaron a Cristo una moneda con su cara y le hicieron una pregunta: “¿debería pagar mis impuestos?” éste era una trampa: porque si Cristo decía que sí, admitía que él César era el verdadero hijo de Dios; y si decía que no, admitía ser un rebelde, y lo podían ejecutar por tradición al imperio.

“Yisus” que era muy listo, sólo le dijo: “(dad) al César, lo que es del César (y a Dios, lo que es de Dios)”. Si tú crees en el César que le da valor esa moneda, ése es tu Dios, págale; pero, sitúcreesenelDios,enelTaooenloquesea,elcosmosnote pide dinero, sólo dale lo que él te dio: que es todo tu ser.

Y con estas ideas hippies, Cristo subió un monte donde dio a conocer la regla de oro: “trata a los demás como te gustaría ser tratado”. Y además le agregó otra regla al manual de usuario de su tribu: “un mandamiento nuevo les doy: que se amen los unos a los otros, como yo los he amado” «–¡a menos que seas joto! –, ¡que no!¡a todos!». ama a tu prójimo como a ti mismo, especialmente tu enemigo.

¿Por qué amar a nuestro enemigo? ¿por qué no mejor patearlos en la cara? «pues» porque miles de años de historia nos demuestran que el mundo ya está lleno de odio, el mal no necesita nuestra ayuda, de por sí la vida ya es difícil, pero no importa lo terrible que es una situación, siempre hay algo que podemos hacer para empeorarla; si queremos mejorarla, el único camino es la compasión.

Mi enemigo no es un monstruo (Donald Trump), ahí donde lo ves es sólo un ser humano; si yo tuviera su vida, quizá sería peor; si él tuviera la mía, quizá le iría mejor, el odio no va a corregirlo, sólo lo hará responderme con más odio. ¿Qué tal si él fuera yo? ¿Qué tal si funcionáramos igual? porque cuando miro dentro de mí, me doy cuenta de que mi maldad es solo testimonio de mi miedo, de mi vulnerabilidad, de lo profundamente humano que soy; y como humano, estoy lleno de defectos, pero como dijo Aristóteles: “la virtud es el punto medio entre dos vicios: entre el exceso y la carencia”

“¡No me regañes!¡edúcame!”, así entrenan a los animales con reforzamiento positivo: cada vez que una de mis carencias se sane y uno de mis excesos se mida, dame amor, poco a poco me convertirás en mejor persona. Funciona con perros y también con seres humanos; y así, en lugar de inmolarnos unos contra otros por nuestros defectos, nos ayudaremos a alcanzar nuestras virtudes.

O mejor aún, qué tal si antes de ir a pelear contra la paja en el ojo del prójimo, primero arreglas la viga en el tuyo, todos tenemos la fuerza para enfrentar los problemas ajenos «¿sí o no?» pues, ¡ten valor y arregla primero los tuyos!, o como dijo (librerías) Gandhi «¡no! el otro» (Mahatma): “sé el cambio que quieres ver en el mundo”.

Por eso Cristo defendía a los pobres, a los pecadores, a los enemigos del pueblo de Israel. En cada ciudad a la que iba: organizaba banquetes, armaba comunas, grupos de gente que vivían en comunidad y tenía la intención de esparcir el mensaje de amor incondicional al prójimo por todo el mundo. Luego viajó a la capital del judaísmo, Jerusalén; para llevar la buena noticia: todos somos hijos de Dios, nuestras peleas son imaginarias, de ahora en adelante nos amaremos los unos a los otros y así, todos seremos mejores personas ¿qué es lo peor que puede pasar?

Y pues nada... lo mataron, hasta la aristocracia judía se dio cuenta de que el amor incondicional al prójimo podía voltear de cabeza el mundo en el que se sentían tan cómodos, un mundo que dependía del odio y el miedo mutuos. Mataron a Cristo en la cruz, donde mataban a los rebeldes, el mismo instrumento donde colgaron a los gladiadores de Espartaco para darle una lección al resto del mundo: “esto le pasa a los que buscan derribar al imperio (romano)”.

Y aún en sus últimos momentos, Cristo nos revela la verdadera naturaleza de la ideología: cuando un soldadito romano lo está torturando y él dice al cielo: “perdónalos, Señor, no saben lo que hacen”, pero no dijo eso de Pilatos, ni de Herodes, ni del sistema que operaba detrás de las acciones del soldadito: ese pobre diablo cegado por su ideología creía que estaba haciendo lo correcto. Y entonces ocurre algo inaudito, algo que no vas a ver en ninguna otra religión.

Antes de morir, Cristo exclama: “Padre ¿por qué me has abandonado?” con su último aliento, Dios se vuelve ateo «se te adelantaron Nietzsche, tu generación no mató a Dios» porque Yahvé, el Dios de los judíos, ése que tenía un plan perfecto y le daba sentido a nuestros dolores murió en la cruz. Desde entonces estamos solos, desde que Cristo descubrió que no hay un más allá, no hay un plan perfecto, el mundo es lo que hacemos de él, porque tú eres yo, y yo soy tú, y no hay nadie más para salvarnos.

Ya no basta con confiar en Dios, si quiere existir, Dios tiene que confiar en nosotros; o cómo dijo el predicador y teólogo alemán Thomas Müntzer “El cielo no es de otro mundo, está en esta en la vida. Y la tarea de los creyentes consiste en establecer aquí, en esta tierra, el reino de Dios”

Y esta idea se hizo clara tres días más tarde: mientras algunos seguidores de Cristo escapaban de Jerusalén se encontraron a Jesús, pero no lo reconocieron “¿cómo de que no? ¿si habían vivido tantas aventuras juntos?” «¡ah!» pero más tarde, mientras partía el pan, en ese acto de comunión fraternal, vieron la acción del Espíritu Santo.

El cristianismo primitivo es una teología bellísima: primero está el Padre, el principio unificador –el Tao si quieres–; luego está el Hijo, que representa al individuo; y luego está el Espíritu Santo, que vive a través de la comunidad, en el amor incondicional hacia el prójimo. Y ése es el Dios del cristianismo original: la Trinidad, no hay uno sin el otro, “es uno para todos y todos para uno”.

«¡Hjam hjam! muy bonito» pero... ¿y la inquisición? ¿cómo es que esta Teología de la Liberación se convirtió en el pretexto de tantas guerras, y torturas, y masacres, y motivó a millones de estadounidenses a votar por Donald Trump? «¡ahh!, pues», pasó lo mismo que siempre ocurre: política; dos mil años de “teléfono descompuesto” nos dieron la cristiandad y como dijo Søren Kierkegaard: “Es muy difícil ser cristiano. Nuestro sistema es una cristiandad, y la cristiandad es la contradicción del cristianismo”.

[tntsportsmex]

¡Llegó para cambiar la historia Red! 🧤❤️

Un día como hoy, pero de 2018, Alisson Becker se convirtió en arquero del Liverpool. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

¿Qué tal su palmarés? 😮‍💨

[localcryptic]

For the oc question thing

🎹🥊🧠 for Ripley and Taliesin? I wanna know more about your sidesteps :)

(i'm deeply amused by the fact that i did interpret this emoji combo not as "these correlate to specific questions on the ask game i reblogged!" and instead as "mm yes Brain Fighting Piano makes sense")

🎹 - Do they have any hobbies?

Tal: i've said it before but i think if they weren't trying to be a supervillain they would make the most insane synth music you've ever heard. they like music that is loud and crunchy and keeps your brain from being able to think and they're the right kind of nerd to teach themself music production for fun. not quite a hobby per se but it's also been my headcanon for a long time for them that they've been learning ASL, so i think they practice in their downtime, maybe take online classes if they got the chance.

Ripley: ripley collects stupid novelty lighters. he loves shitty horror movies and would love horror games if he had time for gaming between his previous commitments of "Beating Up Superheroes" and "Enduring The Terrors". despite his temper, he really likes working on meticulous technological things- he's the kind of guy to build his own PC and do all his own repairs on it, for better or for worse. i'd say he could get into robotics, but he's Also the kind of guy to tape a knife to a roomba and call it a security system, soooo. (oh god, in an ideal world, ripley would compete in those battle robot competitions, he would LOVE that shit.)

🥊 -What do they love to do? What do they hate to do?

Tal: they love escaping from themselves, feeling like they've made a tangible difference, and taking their time to drink their coffee in the morning. they hate making snap decisions without being able to understand the bigger picture.

Ripley: he loves working on a DIY project, spending time around dogs, cleaning, and telling people No just because he can. he hates being told what to do, lying, giving in or giving up.

🧠 - What do you like most about the OC?

Tal: i love their strong principles, exploring their complicated moral compass, and accidentally giving them a different hairstyle every time i draw them and saying "fuck it, that's canon now"

Ripley: i love his terrible bastard attitude, the power he holds just by being himself, and drawing his shitty choppy DIY haircut <3

(thank you for asking!!! the oc ask game questions are here for anyone interested :3)

[namacsan]

#SegundaDDN #sobreasredes

O caso Natalia Becker escancara como as Redes Sociais se tornaram um ambiente propício para que qualquer pessoa possa se apresentar como profissional qualificado e para vender produtos e serviços sem possuírem a competência ou tendo apenas parte dela para tal atividade.

Confira completo:

Deixe a sua opinião nos comentários e siga o perfil!

[xtruss]

Sheikh Zayed Towers, Which Were Destroyed By The Terrorist, Fascist, War Criminal, Apartheid, Liar, Conspirator and the Illegal Regime of the Zionist 🐖 🐷 🐖 🐗 Isra-helli Attacks in Gaza City, seen on June 4, 2024. Photo: Dawoud Abo Alkas/Anadolu via Getty Images

A Federal Judge Visited “The Terrorist, Fascist, War Criminal, Apartheid, Liar, Conspirator and the Illegal Regime of the Zionist 🐖 🐷 🐖 🐗 Isra-hell” On A Junket Designed To Sway Public Opinion. Now He’s Hearing A Gaza Case.

Activists Suing The Biden Administration Over Gaza Policy Are Demanding The Judge Recuse Himself Over The Sponsored Trip.

— Shawn Musgrave | June 5 2024

Plaintiffs Suing The Biden Administration Over Gaza Policy have asked a federal appellate judge to recuse himself because of a trip he took to Israel in March. The World Jewish Congress, which sponsored the junket for 14 federal judges, framed the delegation as part of Israel’s “fight in the international court of public opinion.”

In an emergency motion filed Tuesday, the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued they were “ethically compelled” to ask Judge Ryan Nelson of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to recuse himself because the WJC trip was “explicitly designed to influence U.S. judicial opinion regarding the legality of ongoing Israeli military action against Palestinians.”

The plaintiffs are a mix of Palestinian human rights organizations and individual Palestinians, including Dr. Omar Al-Najjar, who has written about his experiences working in the decimated health infrastructure in Gaza. In November, they filed a complaint in federal court against President Joe Biden and other top officials, seeking “an injunction requiring the United States to fulfill its international law duty to prevent and cease being complicit — through unconditional financial and diplomatic support — in the unfolding genocide in Gaza.”

The district court dismissed the case in late January but urged the administration “to examine the results of their unflagging support of the military siege against the Palestinians in Gaza.” The plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Circuit, which is scheduled to hear oral arguments next week. Nelson’s selection for the three-judge argument panel was announced on Monday.

In March, Nelson joined 13 colleagues from the federal bench on the WJC-sponsored trip. Like Nelson, many of the judges on the trip were appointed by former President Donald Trump.

According to a disclosure about the trip, the judges met with high-ranking members of the Israel Defense Forces about “Operation Swords of Iron” — what Israel calls its current military operation in Gaza — and the application of international humanitarian law during war. The trip also included sessions with one of the attorneys defending Israel before the International Court of Justice, Tal Becker; former Israeli President Reuven Rivlin; and members of Israel’s Supreme Court and Knesset, the disclosure shows.

The judges met with a high-ranking official at the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, to get the “American perspective,” one judge told the Jerusalem Post. State Department Secretary Antony Blinken is one of the defendants in the case before the 9th Circuit.

In a LinkedIn post summarizing lessons from the trip, Judge Matthew Solomson of the Federal Court of Claims, who helped organized the delegation, wrote, “Israel’s military culture is very attuned to international law; commanders consult lawyers at every step and the lawyers have veto power. We watched many video clips of Israeli military lawyers stopping strikes based on proportionality and collateral damage assessments. Their enemy doesn’t play by such rules.”

In late March, Nelson and Solomson spoke about the trip at a lunch talk hosted by Harvard Law School’s chapters of the Federalist Society and the Jewish Law Students Association. Their remarks were not made public, but Solomson wrote in a LinkedIn post that Nelson “expressed his inspiring faith in God and, concomitantly, an optimistic view of the future.”

Kath Hochul’s Trip of “The Terrorist, Fascist, War Criminal, Apartheid, Liar, Conspirator and the Illegal Regime of the Zionist 🐖 🐷 🐖 🐗 Isra-hell” Bankrolled By Group Funding Illegal Settlements! New York Disgusting Governor Kathy Hochul Visits “The Terrorist, Fascist, War Criminal, Apartheid, Liar, Conspirator and the Illegal Regime of the Zionist 🐖 🐷 🐖 🐗 Isra-hell” on October 19, 2023. Photo: Shlomi Amsalem/Office of Gov. Kathy Hochul

UJA-Federation of New York, A Tax-Exempt Nonprofit, Has Sent More Than Half a Million Dollars to Groups Supporting “The Terrorist, Fascist, War Criminal, Apartheid, Liar, Conspirator and the Illegal Regime of the Zionist 🐖 🐷 🐖 🐗 Isra-helli” Settlements.

“The UJA Has Helped Destroy Any Semblance of a ‘Peace Process’ or Possibility of a Two State Solution.”

In their recusal motion, the plaintiffs highlight coverage of the trip in the Israeli press, particularly by the English-language ILTV. “This invaluable experience allowed them to delve deeper into the legality of Israel’s conduct in the operation,” ILTV said of the trip in an Instagram post.

“At this time, when Israel is facing so much in the court of public opinion and in the courts around the world,” WJC’s chief marketing officer, Sara Friedman, told ILTV in March, “it’s so important for people who understand the judicial system, who understand the laws of war, to come here.”

“The World Jewish Congress is sending a message by bringing these groups that we are supporting the state of Israel,” Friedman told ILTV. “By bringing these groups here and showing them the truth about what is going on, it’s the best diplomacy we can do.”

Friedman did not immediately respond to The Intercept’s request for comment about the trip. The Intercept also asked WJC for copies of materials given to the judges during the trip.

An anonymous statement by federal judicial clerks last month criticized the Israel trip.

Peter Joy, who studies legal ethics at Washington University in St. Louis, said it is often difficult to predict how judges will rule on recusal.

“They make a strong case for the judge to step down,” said Joy. “Here’s somebody who went on a trip, the explicit purpose of which was to try to get Israel’s point of view across.”

Cassandra Burke Robertson, director of the Center for Professional Ethics at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, did not think it was a clear-cut case for recusal.

“The closest issue here is that it sounds like officials on the trip may have been providing specific information about the legality of the operation,” Robertson said. “But if the information was more general, then I don’t think it would be disqualifying.”

“Although Judge Nelson certainly COULD recuse, I don’t think recusal is required under the statute or Judicial Canons,” Rory Little, a professor at UC Law San Francisco, told The Intercept in an email. “He might recuse; it’s not a clear case in either direction.”

Arguments are scheduled for June 10, and the plaintiffs asked the 9th Circuit to rule on their emergency recusal motion by Thursday. A spokesperson for the 9th Circuit said the panel will address the motion, “presumably before Monday.”

The Justice Department, which did not oppose the recusal motion, declined to discuss the case.

[bookishnerdlove]

CPQNPD 39

Lentamente bajé los ojos. No había tal contenido en el original. Solo se reveló que Ophelia era un mago negro y no había más información. La magia negra no era tan importante en el trabajo original. Por eso no sabía cómo usar la magia negra. Considere la primera vez que Ophelia aprendió magia negra. Perdió a su padre y cayó en la tristeza—. Probablemente sea por eso que la Ophelia original podría continuar usando magia negra. 'Entonces debo sentir los sentimientos correspondientes.' Funcionará de alguna manera. Ahora que recibí una carta de la ex emperatriz y aprendí más o menos sobre la magia negra, el negocio se acabó. Así que cerré el libro y me levanté. "¿A-todavía vas a tomar prestado el libro?" Habiendo dicho esto, sentí que tenía que llevarlo conmigo. Se siente como si te robaran, ¿no? "De acuerdo. Me lo llevo." Tengo que hacer algo para que sea menos injusto. Lo pensé seriamente. "¡La duquesa!" '¿Estas loco?' Todos aquellos que miraron a Ophelia hasta el final con orgullo por el sonido, todos fueron golpeados. Hazlo polvoriento en un día lluvioso. ¿Se llamaba Olive Becker? De todos modos, Ophelia era realmente la mujer más hermosa del imperio. Excepto por la expresión fría y dura. Entonces encontraron algo. Es el libro que Ophelia tiene de su lado. Whoosh . Los rostros de la gente se han endurecido. En particular, los rostros de las personas que le habían respondido antes a Ophelia se volvieron más pálidos. Está claro que trajo ese libro a propósito. ¡Para mostrárselo a la gente! Eso pensó Ophelia. Fue cuando. "¿Dónde? ¿Dónde? ¿Donde esta ella?" Vaya, aparece la heroína. Ophelia se frotó los labios. Tsk. Ella fue atrapada. Ophelia volvió la cabeza hacia la Gran Duquesa que la llamó. De alguna manera, pudo ver a la Gran Duquesa caminando con una mirada enojada y a Fleur luciendo hosca. Tan pronto como la Gran Duquesa conoció a Ophelia, ella soltó las palabras. Es como esperar. La gente empieza a juntarse. Está claro que se reunieron porque querían ver a la Gran Duquesa regañar a Ophelia. Sabiendo esto, Ophelia se mordió los labios con fuerza. De todos modos, ¿no es correcto que ella haya hecho algo mal? En cuanto la vio en mucho tiempo, dijo que parecía un grano de arroz, por lo que la Gran Duquesa se pudo haber sentido mal. Así que decidió que era correcto disculparse. ¿Ophelia Ryzen se disculpa? Ella no está diciendo, '¡Cállate, fea!' El rostro de la Gran Duquesa estaba arrugado. La Gran Duquesa se acercó a Ophelia y la fulminó con la mirada. "¿Cómo te atreves a insultarme?" ¿Eh? ¿Yo? ¿Cuándo? “¡La Gran Duquesa! ¡No, me equivoqué! La Duquesa solo me regaña—. Todo es mi culpa." Fleur inclinó la cabeza y dijo. Tuk, tuk, y gotas de lágrimas caen y mojan el suelo. Read the full article