China Unleashes Its Anti-Semites

The massacre, abduction, rape, and torture of Jews has not only prompted an eruption of anti-Semitism at American universities, but also in China. Tuvia Gering writes that hatred of Jews has “surged . . . like never before” in the country:

As if on cue, Chinese voices have been working en masse to dehumanize Jews and demonize Israel in the propaganda equivalent of the Three Gorges Dam collapsing, inundating the minds of China with toxic waste. Authoritative Chinese voices set the tone for what is now reverberating throughout the People’s Republic echo chamber.

On [October 10, a] viral post by the state-run China Central Television (CCTV) read, “Jews, who account for 3 percent of the U.S. population, manipulate and control 70 percent of the country’s wealth.” It went on to describe U.S. presidential candidates’ obeisance to Jewish capital in an effort to explain the Biden administration’s unwavering support for Israel.

Chinese public-opinion leaders heard the dog whistle and sprang into action. “Hamas went too soft on Israel,” opined the award-winning online influencer Su Lin soon after. “Isn’t Israel today a Jewish version of the Nazis?” she asked rhetorically.

Racist cartoons, Hitler memes, swastikas, and quotes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are now ubiquitous in comments sections. The anti-Semitic outburst is best illustrated by Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List, which Chinese users review-bombed, causing its score on the video-sharing website BiliBili to drop from over 9 points to a low of 4.1 points. One user commented, “The victims have long since become the perpetrators.”

Read more at Discourse Power

More about: Anti-Semitism, China, Gaza War 2023, Israel-China relations

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