A Fashion Magazine Goes All in for Anti-Semites

Such periodicals as Vogue, which once focused mostly on style, celebrity gossip, dating advice, and movie reviews, have in recent years waded into politics—especially of the left-wing variety. But the British version of the glossy magazine seems to have a particular fondness for anti-Semitic political activists, as Karen Bekker notes:

British Vogue, . . . which claims over 800,000 print readers and 3.2 million unique monthly online visitors, has put what it calls “an inspiring army of activists” on the cover of its September issue (arguably the most important issue of the year). Among the twenty activists the magazine chose to feature are Tamika Mallory and Angela Davis. The magazine called Mallory “one of the most vital activists of her generation” in a feature interview, and called Davis a “straight-up legend.”

In January of 2017, Tamika Mallory rose to prominence as one of four main leaders of the Women’s March, one of the largest political marches in U.S. history. It was not long afterwards, however, that news about her connection with Louis Farrakhan, . . . as well as her own anti-Semitic comments, began to slowly trickle out. . . . In April of 2018, she slandered the Antidefamation League as “CONSTANTLY attacking black and brown people.” . . . At the March’s very first leadership meeting, Mallory asserted . . . “that Jews were proven to have been leaders of the American slave trade.” . . . She also later accused “white Jews” of “upholding white supremacy”.

And then there is Angela Davis, an obsessive Israel hater who herself played a role in a 1970 domestic terror attack:

Davis has supported Rasmea Odeh, a member of the terrorist group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Odeh was convicted in Israel for the killing of two Hebrew University students, Edward Joffe and Leon Kanner. . . . The September cover is the third time this year that British Vogue has prominently featured Davis.

Read more at CAMERA

More about: Anti-Semitism, Louis Farrakhan, Media, PFLP, Women's March

 

The ICJ’s Vice-President Explains What’s Wrong with Its Recent Ruling against Israel

It should be obvious to anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of the Gaza war that Israel is not committing genocide there, or anything even remotely akin to it. In response to such spurious accusations, it’s often best to focus on the mockery they make of international law itself, or on how Israel can most effectively combat them. Still, it is also worth stopping to consider the legal case on its own terms. No one has done this quite so effectively, to my knowledge, as the Ugandan jurist Julia Sebutinde, who is the vice-president of the ICJ and the only one of its judges to rule unequivocally in Israel’s favor both in this case and in the previous one where it found accusations of genocide “plausible.”

Sebutinde begins by questioning the appropriateness of the court ruling on this issue at all:

Once again, South Africa has invited the Court to micromanage the conduct of hostilities between Israel and Hamas. Such hostilities are exclusively governed by the laws of war (international humanitarian law) and international human-rights law, areas where the Court lacks jurisdiction in this case.

The Court should also avoid trying to enforce its own orders. . . . Is the Court going to reaffirm its earlier provisional measures every time a party runs to it with allegations of a breach of its provisional measures? I should think not.

Sebutinde also emphasizes the absurdity of hearing this case after Israel has taken “multiple concrete actions” to alleviate the suffering of Gazan civilians since the ICJ’s last ruling. In fact, she points out, “the evidence actually shows a gradual improvement in the humanitarian situation in Gaza since the Court’s order.” She brings much evidence in support of these points.

She concludes her dissent by highlighting the procedural irregularities of the case, including a complete failure to respect the basic rights of the accused:

I find it necessary to note my serious concerns regarding the manner in which South Africa’s request and incidental oral hearings were managed by the Court, resulting in Israel not having sufficient time to file its written observations on the request. In my view, the Court should have consented to Israel’s request to postpone the oral hearings to the following week to allow for Israel to have sufficient time to fully respond to South Africa’s request and engage counsel. Regrettably, as a result of the exceptionally abbreviated timeframe for the hearings, Israel could not be represented by its chosen counsel, who were unavailable on the dates scheduled by the Court.

It is also regrettable that Israel was required to respond to a question posed by a member of the Court over the Jewish Sabbath. The Court’s decisions in this respect bear upon the procedural equality between the parties and the good administration of justice by the Court.

Read more at International Court of Justice

More about: Gaza War 2023, ICC, International Law