The indelible stain on the UN committee once chaired by William Schabas

[Phoenall]

Then why hasn't he disclosed the questions that were so innocent if he has nothing to hide. If he dealt with the PLO in a professional manner then he is not fit to sit on any committee that could be seen as a conflict of interest. Would you like to be faced by a Judge who had once defended the other party in a court of law, or would you rightly claim conflict of interest.

His answer to the above:
"I did not apply for the job. I was approached by the UN to do it. There was no question of disclosure of previous activities, because my record was well-known within the UN as well as by the states that were consulted on my appointment, including Israel. Earlier in the year, when I was being considered as a candidate for special rapporteur on the occupied territories, Israel was quite active in its opposition to me. Israel knew all about my past and my activities. The record is public." Q A William Schabas No evidence I m biased against Israel The Canadian Jewish News

And as a professional he should have refused point blank because of a conflict of interest. What would you say if the next person approached had done work for Israel in the same manner. Would you accept him as chair of such an important committee, or would you be demanding his removal because of his conflict of interest. When he was originally appointed to the post those who were unbiased asked why he was appointed with his track record of ANTI SEMITISM and BIAS towards Israel.

I'll let the man answer that for himself:
"The word “biased” gets thrown around a great deal in this discussion. Some people seem to think that it is the same thing as having an opinion that is contrary to their own. But bias refers to someone who is asked to provide an impartial judgment and who is incapable of doing this because of personal views. Someone without bias is someone who is capable of putting their personal views aside in order to reach an objective, neutral and impartial position. There is lots of evidence that, in the past, I have expressed views that do not correspond to those of the government of Israel. But I can only be accused of bias if it can be shown that I cannot detach myself from those views. Is there any evidence that I cannot? I don’t think so. I think most of those who have criticized me for “bias” really only want to have a commission composed of people with views that lean in their direction. Q A William Schabas No evidence I m biased against Israel The Canadian Jewish News

And yet he has spoken out in the past in anything less like neutral words about Israel. He has accepted evidence that painted Israel blacker than black, but never withdrawn his words when the evidence was later proven to be false and Islamic propaganda. That in itself shows an unhealthy bias towards not only Israel but the Jews.

His response: "But I can only be accused of bias if it can be shown that I cannot detach myself from those views. Is there any evidence that I cannot? I don’t think so."

And yet he is viewed as a rabid ANTI SEMITE with comments such as these.

In 2010, writing in an article for a law journal, in response to the Israeli Prime Minister's statement that Israel faced "three major strategic challenges, namely the Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone,"Schabas stated his view that Binjamin Netanyahu might be regarded as “the single individual most likely to threaten the survival of Israel

Also in 2011, Schabas said in a speech that he believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu should be "in the dock of an international court

In 2012, in regard to Iranian nuclear program, Shabas wrote that Iran “very arguably has a claim to require nuclear weapons for defensive purposes

Regarding Hamas, Shabas said: “If we look at the poor people of Gaza ... all they want is a state – and they get punished for insisting upon this, and for supporting a political party in their own determination and their own assessment that seems to be representing that aspiration

Schabas has accused Israel of war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression committed “on the territory of Palestine since 2002,” and has acknowledged that “much of [his] effort” is focused on bringing about the prosecution of Israelis at the International Criminal Court



And then his BLOOD LIBEL

During a speech at the Russell Tribunal in 2013, Schabas said that it is his "profound belief [that] the international law can be used to demonstrate and underscore the violations committed by the State of Israel, and moreover can be used to hold accountable individuals who have perpetrated international crimes against the people of Palestine." Asked about various possible tools for prosecuting Israel, Schabas said: "I would have been inclined to talk about crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, all of which I think can be shown have been perpetrated at various times during the history of the State of Israel. These are all crimes that have become increasingly robust in their definition in recent decades and for which we now have international institutions capable of prosecuting the crimes. With a bit of luck, and by twisting things and maneuvering, we can get them before the courts

 

[montelatici]

His answer to the above:
"I did not apply for the job. I was approached by the UN to do it. There was no question of disclosure of previous activities, because my record was well-known within the UN as well as by the states that were consulted on my appointment, including Israel. Earlier in the year, when I was being considered as a candidate for special rapporteur on the occupied territories, Israel was quite active in its opposition to me. Israel knew all about my past and my activities. The record is public." Q A William Schabas No evidence I m biased against Israel The Canadian Jewish News

And as a professional he should have refused point blank because of a conflict of interest. What would you say if the next person approached had done work for Israel in the same manner. Would you accept him as chair of such an important committee, or would you be demanding his removal because of his conflict of interest. When he was originally appointed to the post those who were unbiased asked why he was appointed with his track record of ANTI SEMITISM and BIAS towards Israel.

I'll let the man answer that for himself:
"The word “biased” gets thrown around a great deal in this discussion. Some people seem to think that it is the same thing as having an opinion that is contrary to their own. But bias refers to someone who is asked to provide an impartial judgment and who is incapable of doing this because of personal views. Someone without bias is someone who is capable of putting their personal views aside in order to reach an objective, neutral and impartial position. There is lots of evidence that, in the past, I have expressed views that do not correspond to those of the government of Israel. But I can only be accused of bias if it can be shown that I cannot detach myself from those views. Is there any evidence that I cannot? I don’t think so. I think most of those who have criticized me for “bias” really only want to have a commission composed of people with views that lean in their direction. Q A William Schabas No evidence I m biased against Israel The Canadian Jewish News

And yet he has spoken out in the past in anything less like neutral words about Israel. He has accepted evidence that painted Israel blacker than black, but never withdrawn his words when the evidence was later proven to be false and Islamic propaganda. That in itself shows an unhealthy bias towards not only Israel but the Jews.

His response: "But I can only be accused of bias if it can be shown that I cannot detach myself from those views. Is there any evidence that I cannot? I don’t think so."

And yet he is viewed as a rabid ANTI SEMITE with comments such as these.

In 2010, writing in an article for a law journal, in response to the Israeli Prime Minister's statement that Israel faced "three major strategic challenges, namely the Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone,"Schabas stated his view that Binjamin Netanyahu might be regarded as “the single individual most likely to threaten the survival of Israel

Also in 2011, Schabas said in a speech that he believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu should be "in the dock of an international court

In 2012, in regard to Iranian nuclear program, Shabas wrote that Iran “very arguably has a claim to require nuclear weapons for defensive purposes

Regarding Hamas, Shabas said: “If we look at the poor people of Gaza ... all they want is a state – and they get punished for insisting upon this, and for supporting a political party in their own determination and their own assessment that seems to be representing that aspiration

Schabas has accused Israel of war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression committed “on the territory of Palestine since 2002,” and has acknowledged that “much of [his] effort” is focused on bringing about the prosecution of Israelis at the International Criminal Court



And then his BLOOD LIBEL

During a speech at the Russell Tribunal in 2013, Schabas said that it is his "profound belief [that] the international law can be used to demonstrate and underscore the violations committed by the State of Israel, and moreover can be used to hold accountable individuals who have perpetrated international crimes against the people of Palestine." Asked about various possible tools for prosecuting Israel, Schabas said: "I would have been inclined to talk about crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, all of which I think can be shown have been perpetrated at various times during the history of the State of Israel. These are all crimes that have become increasingly robust in their definition in recent decades and for which we now have international institutions capable of prosecuting the crimes. With a bit of luck, and by twisting things and maneuvering, we can get them before the courts

Is there anything wrong with his statement? With the U.S. working to prevent Israel from being tried before the courts, it will take luck and twisty maneuvers to get Israel before the International Courts.

 

[Challenger]

His answer to the above:
"I did not apply for the job. I was approached by the UN to do it. There was no question of disclosure of previous activities, because my record was well-known within the UN as well as by the states that were consulted on my appointment, including Israel. Earlier in the year, when I was being considered as a candidate for special rapporteur on the occupied territories, Israel was quite active in its opposition to me. Israel knew all about my past and my activities. The record is public." Q A William Schabas No evidence I m biased against Israel The Canadian Jewish News

And as a professional he should have refused point blank because of a conflict of interest. What would you say if the next person approached had done work for Israel in the same manner. Would you accept him as chair of such an important committee, or would you be demanding his removal because of his conflict of interest. When he was originally appointed to the post those who were unbiased asked why he was appointed with his track record of ANTI SEMITISM and BIAS towards Israel.

I'll let the man answer that for himself:
"The word “biased” gets thrown around a great deal in this discussion. Some people seem to think that it is the same thing as having an opinion that is contrary to their own. But bias refers to someone who is asked to provide an impartial judgment and who is incapable of doing this because of personal views. Someone without bias is someone who is capable of putting their personal views aside in order to reach an objective, neutral and impartial position. There is lots of evidence that, in the past, I have expressed views that do not correspond to those of the government of Israel. But I can only be accused of bias if it can be shown that I cannot detach myself from those views. Is there any evidence that I cannot? I don’t think so. I think most of those who have criticized me for “bias” really only want to have a commission composed of people with views that lean in their direction. Q A William Schabas No evidence I m biased against Israel The Canadian Jewish News

And yet he has spoken out in the past in anything less like neutral words about Israel. He has accepted evidence that painted Israel blacker than black, but never withdrawn his words when the evidence was later proven to be false and Islamic propaganda. That in itself shows an unhealthy bias towards not only Israel but the Jews.

His response: "But I can only be accused of bias if it can be shown that I cannot detach myself from those views. Is there any evidence that I cannot? I don’t think so."

And yet he is viewed as a rabid ANTI SEMITE with comments such as these.

In 2010, writing in an article for a law journal, in response to the Israeli Prime Minister's statement that Israel faced "three major strategic challenges, namely the Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone,"Schabas stated his view that Binjamin Netanyahu might be regarded as “the single individual most likely to threaten the survival of Israel

Also in 2011, Schabas said in a speech that he believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu should be "in the dock of an international court

In 2012, in regard to Iranian nuclear program, Shabas wrote that Iran “very arguably has a claim to require nuclear weapons for defensive purposes

Regarding Hamas, Shabas said: “If we look at the poor people of Gaza ... all they want is a state – and they get punished for insisting upon this, and for supporting a political party in their own determination and their own assessment that seems to be representing that aspiration

Schabas has accused Israel of war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression committed “on the territory of Palestine since 2002,” and has acknowledged that “much of [his] effort” is focused on bringing about the prosecution of Israelis at the International Criminal Court



And then his BLOOD LIBEL

During a speech at the Russell Tribunal in 2013, Schabas said that it is his "profound belief [that] the international law can be used to demonstrate and underscore the violations committed by the State of Israel, and moreover can be used to hold accountable individuals who have perpetrated international crimes against the people of Palestine." Asked about various possible tools for prosecuting Israel, Schabas said: "I would have been inclined to talk about crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, all of which I think can be shown have been perpetrated at various times during the history of the State of Israel. These are all crimes that have become increasingly robust in their definition in recent decades and for which we now have international institutions capable of prosecuting the crimes. With a bit of luck, and by twisting things and maneuvering, we can get them before the courts

Where is the rabid Anti-Semitism or Blood Libel there? I personally think Tony Blair should be indicted for war crimes, but I still plan to vote Labour this year. Having particular views about an individual does not mean being prejudiced against a whole group. If Israel feels it needs Nuclear weapons for defensive purposes then surely any other country that feels the same should have them? That is clearly an unbiased view, as are his views on Gazan aspirations for statehood. If he feels he has the evidence to bring war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression charges against individual Israelis, then as a Jurist it is his duty to do so; in fact not doing so when in posession of such evidence, is not only showing bias but also corrupt or criminal intent, a.k.a. aiding and abetting. If he can overcome any obstacles put in his way by his corrupt and criminal opponents, so much the better, ultimately justice is served.

 

[Phoenall]

And as a professional he should have refused point blank because of a conflict of interest. What would you say if the next person approached had done work for Israel in the same manner. Would you accept him as chair of such an important committee, or would you be demanding his removal because of his conflict of interest. When he was originally appointed to the post those who were unbiased asked why he was appointed with his track record of ANTI SEMITISM and BIAS towards Israel.

I'll let the man answer that for himself:
"The word “biased” gets thrown around a great deal in this discussion. Some people seem to think that it is the same thing as having an opinion that is contrary to their own. But bias refers to someone who is asked to provide an impartial judgment and who is incapable of doing this because of personal views. Someone without bias is someone who is capable of putting their personal views aside in order to reach an objective, neutral and impartial position. There is lots of evidence that, in the past, I have expressed views that do not correspond to those of the government of Israel. But I can only be accused of bias if it can be shown that I cannot detach myself from those views. Is there any evidence that I cannot? I don’t think so. I think most of those who have criticized me for “bias” really only want to have a commission composed of people with views that lean in their direction. Q A William Schabas No evidence I m biased against Israel The Canadian Jewish News

And yet he has spoken out in the past in anything less like neutral words about Israel. He has accepted evidence that painted Israel blacker than black, but never withdrawn his words when the evidence was later proven to be false and Islamic propaganda. That in itself shows an unhealthy bias towards not only Israel but the Jews.

His response: "But I can only be accused of bias if it can be shown that I cannot detach myself from those views. Is there any evidence that I cannot? I don’t think so."

And yet he is viewed as a rabid ANTI SEMITE with comments such as these.

In 2010, writing in an article for a law journal, in response to the Israeli Prime Minister's statement that Israel faced "three major strategic challenges, namely the Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone,"Schabas stated his view that Binjamin Netanyahu might be regarded as “the single individual most likely to threaten the survival of Israel

Also in 2011, Schabas said in a speech that he believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu should be "in the dock of an international court

In 2012, in regard to Iranian nuclear program, Shabas wrote that Iran “very arguably has a claim to require nuclear weapons for defensive purposes

Regarding Hamas, Shabas said: “If we look at the poor people of Gaza ... all they want is a state – and they get punished for insisting upon this, and for supporting a political party in their own determination and their own assessment that seems to be representing that aspiration

Schabas has accused Israel of war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression committed “on the territory of Palestine since 2002,” and has acknowledged that “much of [his] effort” is focused on bringing about the prosecution of Israelis at the International Criminal Court



And then his BLOOD LIBEL

During a speech at the Russell Tribunal in 2013, Schabas said that it is his "profound belief [that] the international law can be used to demonstrate and underscore the violations committed by the State of Israel, and moreover can be used to hold accountable individuals who have perpetrated international crimes against the people of Palestine." Asked about various possible tools for prosecuting Israel, Schabas said: "I would have been inclined to talk about crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, all of which I think can be shown have been perpetrated at various times during the history of the State of Israel. These are all crimes that have become increasingly robust in their definition in recent decades and for which we now have international institutions capable of prosecuting the crimes. With a bit of luck, and by twisting things and maneuvering, we can get them before the courts

Is there anything wrong with his statement? With the U.S. working to prevent Israel from being tried before the courts, it will take luck and twisty maneuvers to get Israel before the International Courts.

STOP MANIPULATION POSTS he never mentioned the US. But his words show that he will try any trick to demonise the Jews.

Now if he had said With a bit of luck, and by twisting things and manoeuvring, we can get the Palestinians before the courts You would be amongst the first to scream and shout for his blood

 

[Phoenall]

And as a professional he should have refused point blank because of a conflict of interest. What would you say if the next person approached had done work for Israel in the same manner. Would you accept him as chair of such an important committee, or would you be demanding his removal because of his conflict of interest. When he was originally appointed to the post those who were unbiased asked why he was appointed with his track record of ANTI SEMITISM and BIAS towards Israel.

I'll let the man answer that for himself:
"The word “biased” gets thrown around a great deal in this discussion. Some people seem to think that it is the same thing as having an opinion that is contrary to their own. But bias refers to someone who is asked to provide an impartial judgment and who is incapable of doing this because of personal views. Someone without bias is someone who is capable of putting their personal views aside in order to reach an objective, neutral and impartial position. There is lots of evidence that, in the past, I have expressed views that do not correspond to those of the government of Israel. But I can only be accused of bias if it can be shown that I cannot detach myself from those views. Is there any evidence that I cannot? I don’t think so. I think most of those who have criticized me for “bias” really only want to have a commission composed of people with views that lean in their direction. Q A William Schabas No evidence I m biased against Israel The Canadian Jewish News

And yet he has spoken out in the past in anything less like neutral words about Israel. He has accepted evidence that painted Israel blacker than black, but never withdrawn his words when the evidence was later proven to be false and Islamic propaganda. That in itself shows an unhealthy bias towards not only Israel but the Jews.

His response: "But I can only be accused of bias if it can be shown that I cannot detach myself from those views. Is there any evidence that I cannot? I don’t think so."

And yet he is viewed as a rabid ANTI SEMITE with comments such as these.

In 2010, writing in an article for a law journal, in response to the Israeli Prime Minister's statement that Israel faced "three major strategic challenges, namely the Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone,"Schabas stated his view that Binjamin Netanyahu might be regarded as “the single individual most likely to threaten the survival of Israel

Also in 2011, Schabas said in a speech that he believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu should be "in the dock of an international court

In 2012, in regard to Iranian nuclear program, Shabas wrote that Iran “very arguably has a claim to require nuclear weapons for defensive purposes

Regarding Hamas, Shabas said: “If we look at the poor people of Gaza ... all they want is a state – and they get punished for insisting upon this, and for supporting a political party in their own determination and their own assessment that seems to be representing that aspiration

Schabas has accused Israel of war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression committed “on the territory of Palestine since 2002,” and has acknowledged that “much of [his] effort” is focused on bringing about the prosecution of Israelis at the International Criminal Court



And then his BLOOD LIBEL

During a speech at the Russell Tribunal in 2013, Schabas said that it is his "profound belief [that] the international law can be used to demonstrate and underscore the violations committed by the State of Israel, and moreover can be used to hold accountable individuals who have perpetrated international crimes against the people of Palestine." Asked about various possible tools for prosecuting Israel, Schabas said: "I would have been inclined to talk about crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, all of which I think can be shown have been perpetrated at various times during the history of the State of Israel. These are all crimes that have become increasingly robust in their definition in recent decades and for which we now have international institutions capable of prosecuting the crimes. With a bit of luck, and by twisting things and maneuvering, we can get them before the courts

Where is the rabid Anti-Semitism or Blood Libel there? I personally think Tony Blair should be indicted for war crimes, but I still plan to vote Labour this year. Having particular views about an individual does not mean being prejudiced against a whole group. If Israel feels it needs Nuclear weapons for defensive purposes then surely any other country that feels the same should have them? That is clearly an unbiased view, as are his views on Gazan aspirations for statehood. If he feels he has the evidence to bring war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression charges against individual Israelis, then as a Jurist it is his duty to do so; in fact not doing so when in posession of such evidence, is not only showing bias but also corrupt or criminal intent, a.k.a. aiding and abetting. If he can overcome any obstacles put in his way by his corrupt and criminal opponents, so much the better, ultimately justice is served.

If you cant see it then it is no wonder you will vote Labour. But don't blame me when the UK ends up bankrupt morally and financially, and the muslims take over and start killing in the name of neo Marxism.

 

[montelatici]

Why would anyone have to say anything like that. Palestinians are rounded up without charges without any difficulty, they are under Israeli control. It would be funny, but not rational.

 

[Challenger]

I'll let the man answer that for himself:
"The word “biased” gets thrown around a great deal in this discussion. Some people seem to think that it is the same thing as having an opinion that is contrary to their own. But bias refers to someone who is asked to provide an impartial judgment and who is incapable of doing this because of personal views. Someone without bias is someone who is capable of putting their personal views aside in order to reach an objective, neutral and impartial position. There is lots of evidence that, in the past, I have expressed views that do not correspond to those of the government of Israel. But I can only be accused of bias if it can be shown that I cannot detach myself from those views. Is there any evidence that I cannot? I don’t think so. I think most of those who have criticized me for “bias” really only want to have a commission composed of people with views that lean in their direction. Q A William Schabas No evidence I m biased against Israel The Canadian Jewish News

And yet he has spoken out in the past in anything less like neutral words about Israel. He has accepted evidence that painted Israel blacker than black, but never withdrawn his words when the evidence was later proven to be false and Islamic propaganda. That in itself shows an unhealthy bias towards not only Israel but the Jews.

His response: "But I can only be accused of bias if it can be shown that I cannot detach myself from those views. Is there any evidence that I cannot? I don’t think so."

And yet he is viewed as a rabid ANTI SEMITE with comments such as these.

In 2010, writing in an article for a law journal, in response to the Israeli Prime Minister's statement that Israel faced "three major strategic challenges, namely the Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone,"Schabas stated his view that Binjamin Netanyahu might be regarded as “the single individual most likely to threaten the survival of Israel

Also in 2011, Schabas said in a speech that he believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu should be "in the dock of an international court

In 2012, in regard to Iranian nuclear program, Shabas wrote that Iran “very arguably has a claim to require nuclear weapons for defensive purposes

Regarding Hamas, Shabas said: “If we look at the poor people of Gaza ... all they want is a state – and they get punished for insisting upon this, and for supporting a political party in their own determination and their own assessment that seems to be representing that aspiration

Schabas has accused Israel of war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression committed “on the territory of Palestine since 2002,” and has acknowledged that “much of [his] effort” is focused on bringing about the prosecution of Israelis at the International Criminal Court



And then his BLOOD LIBEL

During a speech at the Russell Tribunal in 2013, Schabas said that it is his "profound belief [that] the international law can be used to demonstrate and underscore the violations committed by the State of Israel, and moreover can be used to hold accountable individuals who have perpetrated international crimes against the people of Palestine." Asked about various possible tools for prosecuting Israel, Schabas said: "I would have been inclined to talk about crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, all of which I think can be shown have been perpetrated at various times during the history of the State of Israel. These are all crimes that have become increasingly robust in their definition in recent decades and for which we now have international institutions capable of prosecuting the crimes. With a bit of luck, and by twisting things and maneuvering, we can get them before the courts

Where is the rabid Anti-Semitism or Blood Libel there? I personally think Tony Blair should be indicted for war crimes, but I still plan to vote Labour this year. Having particular views about an individual does not mean being prejudiced against a whole group. If Israel feels it needs Nuclear weapons for defensive purposes then surely any other country that feels the same should have them? That is clearly an unbiased view, as are his views on Gazan aspirations for statehood. If he feels he has the evidence to bring war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression charges against individual Israelis, then as a Jurist it is his duty to do so; in fact not doing so when in posession of such evidence, is not only showing bias but also corrupt or criminal intent, a.k.a. aiding and abetting. If he can overcome any obstacles put in his way by his corrupt and criminal opponents, so much the better, ultimately justice is served.

If you cant see it then it is no wonder you will vote Labour. But don't blame me when the UK ends up bankrupt morally and financially, and the muslims take over and start killing in the name of neo Marxism.

The UK is already bankrupt, morally and financially thanks to the Tories. Hang on gramps, you're betting confused again, according to you Mooslims are ISLAMO-FASCISTS, so they can't be NEO-MARXISTS can they. Never mind eh, have a nice sup of cocoa, then you can watch your favourite TV show and don't forget your meds.

 

[Phoenall]

Why would anyone have to say anything like that. Palestinians are rounded up without charges without any difficulty, they are under Israeli control. It would be funny, but not rational.

Just like Palestinians are rounded up in gaza and shot by hamas security people, some for doing nothing more than having a wedding. Then there are the Christians in Palestine rounded up and forcible evicted from their homes because they are not muslims. So why don't you try and be balanced if you are supposed to be unbiased ?

 

[Phoenall]

And yet he has spoken out in the past in anything less like neutral words about Israel. He has accepted evidence that painted Israel blacker than black, but never withdrawn his words when the evidence was later proven to be false and Islamic propaganda. That in itself shows an unhealthy bias towards not only Israel but the Jews.

His response: "But I can only be accused of bias if it can be shown that I cannot detach myself from those views. Is there any evidence that I cannot? I don’t think so."

And yet he is viewed as a rabid ANTI SEMITE with comments such as these.

In 2010, writing in an article for a law journal, in response to the Israeli Prime Minister's statement that Israel faced "three major strategic challenges, namely the Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone,"Schabas stated his view that Binjamin Netanyahu might be regarded as “the single individual most likely to threaten the survival of Israel

Also in 2011, Schabas said in a speech that he believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu should be "in the dock of an international court

In 2012, in regard to Iranian nuclear program, Shabas wrote that Iran “very arguably has a claim to require nuclear weapons for defensive purposes

Regarding Hamas, Shabas said: “If we look at the poor people of Gaza ... all they want is a state – and they get punished for insisting upon this, and for supporting a political party in their own determination and their own assessment that seems to be representing that aspiration

Schabas has accused Israel of war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression committed “on the territory of Palestine since 2002,” and has acknowledged that “much of [his] effort” is focused on bringing about the prosecution of Israelis at the International Criminal Court



And then his BLOOD LIBEL

During a speech at the Russell Tribunal in 2013, Schabas said that it is his "profound belief [that] the international law can be used to demonstrate and underscore the violations committed by the State of Israel, and moreover can be used to hold accountable individuals who have perpetrated international crimes against the people of Palestine." Asked about various possible tools for prosecuting Israel, Schabas said: "I would have been inclined to talk about crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, all of which I think can be shown have been perpetrated at various times during the history of the State of Israel. These are all crimes that have become increasingly robust in their definition in recent decades and for which we now have international institutions capable of prosecuting the crimes. With a bit of luck, and by twisting things and maneuvering, we can get them before the courts

Where is the rabid Anti-Semitism or Blood Libel there? I personally think Tony Blair should be indicted for war crimes, but I still plan to vote Labour this year. Having particular views about an individual does not mean being prejudiced against a whole group. If Israel feels it needs Nuclear weapons for defensive purposes then surely any other country that feels the same should have them? That is clearly an unbiased view, as are his views on Gazan aspirations for statehood. If he feels he has the evidence to bring war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression charges against individual Israelis, then as a Jurist it is his duty to do so; in fact not doing so when in posession of such evidence, is not only showing bias but also corrupt or criminal intent, a.k.a. aiding and abetting. If he can overcome any obstacles put in his way by his corrupt and criminal opponents, so much the better, ultimately justice is served.

If you cant see it then it is no wonder you will vote Labour. But don't blame me when the UK ends up bankrupt morally and financially, and the muslims take over and start killing in the name of neo Marxism.

The UK is already bankrupt, morally and financially thanks to the Tories. Hang on gramps, you're betting confused again, according to you Mooslims are ISLAMO-FASCISTS, so they can't be NEO-MARXISTS can they. Never mind eh, have a nice sup of cocoa, then you can watch your favourite TV show and don't forget your meds.

They can as the biggest fascist happen to be Marxists, or didn't you know that ?

The UK is increasing its economy, it is reducing the debts left behind by the last labour government and has more people in work. It is only the champagne socialists that sees any wrong in cutting welfare to those workshy who think they should get £30k for sitting at home doing nothing. How many people have never worked a day in their lives and get more that the national average wage for doing so.

 

[Challenger]

His response: "But I can only be accused of bias if it can be shown that I cannot detach myself from those views. Is there any evidence that I cannot? I don’t think so."

And yet he is viewed as a rabid ANTI SEMITE with comments such as these.

In 2010, writing in an article for a law journal, in response to the Israeli Prime Minister's statement that Israel faced "three major strategic challenges, namely the Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone,"Schabas stated his view that Binjamin Netanyahu might be regarded as “the single individual most likely to threaten the survival of Israel

Also in 2011, Schabas said in a speech that he believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu should be "in the dock of an international court

In 2012, in regard to Iranian nuclear program, Shabas wrote that Iran “very arguably has a claim to require nuclear weapons for defensive purposes

Regarding Hamas, Shabas said: “If we look at the poor people of Gaza ... all they want is a state – and they get punished for insisting upon this, and for supporting a political party in their own determination and their own assessment that seems to be representing that aspiration

Schabas has accused Israel of war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression committed “on the territory of Palestine since 2002,” and has acknowledged that “much of [his] effort” is focused on bringing about the prosecution of Israelis at the International Criminal Court


And then his BLOOD LIBEL

During a speech at the Russell Tribunal in 2013, Schabas said that it is his "profound belief [that] the international law can be used to demonstrate and underscore the violations committed by the State of Israel, and moreover can be used to hold accountable individuals who have perpetrated international crimes against the people of Palestine." Asked about various possible tools for prosecuting Israel, Schabas said: "I would have been inclined to talk about crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, all of which I think can be shown have been perpetrated at various times during the history of the State of Israel. These are all crimes that have become increasingly robust in their definition in recent decades and for which we now have international institutions capable of prosecuting the crimes. With a bit of luck, and by twisting things and maneuvering, we can get them before the courts

Where is the rabid Anti-Semitism or Blood Libel there? I personally think Tony Blair should be indicted for war crimes, but I still plan to vote Labour this year. Having particular views about an individual does not mean being prejudiced against a whole group. If Israel feels it needs Nuclear weapons for defensive purposes then surely any other country that feels the same should have them? That is clearly an unbiased view, as are his views on Gazan aspirations for statehood. If he feels he has the evidence to bring war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression charges against individual Israelis, then as a Jurist it is his duty to do so; in fact not doing so when in posession of such evidence, is not only showing bias but also corrupt or criminal intent, a.k.a. aiding and abetting. If he can overcome any obstacles put in his way by his corrupt and criminal opponents, so much the better, ultimately justice is served.

If you cant see it then it is no wonder you will vote Labour. But don't blame me when the UK ends up bankrupt morally and financially, and the muslims take over and start killing in the name of neo Marxism.

The UK is already bankrupt, morally and financially thanks to the Tories. Hang on gramps, you're betting confused again, according to you Mooslims are ISLAMO-FASCISTS, so they can't be NEO-MARXISTS can they. Never mind eh, have a nice sup of cocoa, then you can watch your favourite TV show and don't forget your meds.

They can as the biggest fascist happen to be Marxists, or didn't you know that ?

The UK is increasing its economy, it is reducing the debts left behind by the last labour government and has more people in work. It is only the champagne socialists that sees any wrong in cutting welfare to those workshy who think they should get £30k for sitting at home doing nothing. How many people have never worked a day in their lives and get more that the national average wage for doing so.

Thank you for that, you've just convinced me and probably anyone else reading this, you really have no idea at all. You may be retired but I still work for a living, so I'm still in the real world.

Remember the economic projections George Osborne made when he first took office in 2010? http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/econ_fiscal_outlook_291110.pdf He as good as bragged about how he was going to completely eradicate the budget deficit by 2015, and how he was going to protect the UKs Credit rating,

“Our first benchmark is to cut the deficit more quickly to safeguard Britain’s credit rating. I know that we are taking a political gamble to set this up as a measure of success. Protecting the credit rating will not be easy… The pace of fiscal consolidation will be co-ordinated with monetary policy. And we will protect Britain’s credit rating and international reputation.”—George Osborne 2010,

Really? Well that was an epic fail.

Everyone across the political and economic spectrum both at home and abroad now accepts that there is absolutely no chance that the UK budget deficit will be eradicated by 2015 and remember what happened in 2013? The UK suffered the embarrassment of being stripped of its AAA ratings by the credit rating agencies for the first time since the 1970s.

By this election Osborne will have borrowed £207 BILLION more than he claimed he would and our national debt has risen by 50% in 5 years. Osborne has in fact increased the National Debt more than all the Labour governments in history combined.

All of this might be forgivable if our economy was improving, but the economy is way smaller than he claimed it was going to be back in 2010. Osborne's 2010 projections claimed that by the end of the 2010-15 parliament the nominal GDP of the UK economy would be £1,916 billion, however this has now been revised downwards to £1,788 billion.

So to recap, he borrowed £207 billion more than he said he would and as a result of his efforts the economy is now £128 billion smaller than he claimed it would be as a result of his policies. If this tosser had worked for me, he'd be long out the door looking for a new job by now.

Recovery? The UK economy has only recently returned to pre-crisis levels, that’s true; but that means under the Tories the entire UK economy has averaged a growth rate of 0%, yes 0% for 7 years! That’s the slowest economic recovery since the South Sea Bubble disaster in the 1720’s.

 

[Phoenall]

And yet he is viewed as a rabid ANTI SEMITE with comments such as these.

In 2010, writing in an article for a law journal, in response to the Israeli Prime Minister's statement that Israel faced "three major strategic challenges, namely the Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone,"Schabas stated his view that Binjamin Netanyahu might be regarded as “the single individual most likely to threaten the survival of Israel

Also in 2011, Schabas said in a speech that he believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu should be "in the dock of an international court

In 2012, in regard to Iranian nuclear program, Shabas wrote that Iran “very arguably has a claim to require nuclear weapons for defensive purposes

Regarding Hamas, Shabas said: “If we look at the poor people of Gaza ... all they want is a state – and they get punished for insisting upon this, and for supporting a political party in their own determination and their own assessment that seems to be representing that aspiration

Schabas has accused Israel of war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression committed “on the territory of Palestine since 2002,” and has acknowledged that “much of [his] effort” is focused on bringing about the prosecution of Israelis at the International Criminal Court


And then his BLOOD LIBEL

During a speech at the Russell Tribunal in 2013, Schabas said that it is his "profound belief [that] the international law can be used to demonstrate and underscore the violations committed by the State of Israel, and moreover can be used to hold accountable individuals who have perpetrated international crimes against the people of Palestine." Asked about various possible tools for prosecuting Israel, Schabas said: "I would have been inclined to talk about crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, all of which I think can be shown have been perpetrated at various times during the history of the State of Israel. These are all crimes that have become increasingly robust in their definition in recent decades and for which we now have international institutions capable of prosecuting the crimes. With a bit of luck, and by twisting things and maneuvering, we can get them before the courts

Where is the rabid Anti-Semitism or Blood Libel there? I personally think Tony Blair should be indicted for war crimes, but I still plan to vote Labour this year. Having particular views about an individual does not mean being prejudiced against a whole group. If Israel feels it needs Nuclear weapons for defensive purposes then surely any other country that feels the same should have them? That is clearly an unbiased view, as are his views on Gazan aspirations for statehood. If he feels he has the evidence to bring war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression charges against individual Israelis, then as a Jurist it is his duty to do so; in fact not doing so when in posession of such evidence, is not only showing bias but also corrupt or criminal intent, a.k.a. aiding and abetting. If he can overcome any obstacles put in his way by his corrupt and criminal opponents, so much the better, ultimately justice is served.

If you cant see it then it is no wonder you will vote Labour. But don't blame me when the UK ends up bankrupt morally and financially, and the muslims take over and start killing in the name of neo Marxism.

The UK is already bankrupt, morally and financially thanks to the Tories. Hang on gramps, you're betting confused again, according to you Mooslims are ISLAMO-FASCISTS, so they can't be NEO-MARXISTS can they. Never mind eh, have a nice sup of cocoa, then you can watch your favourite TV show and don't forget your meds.

They can as the biggest fascist happen to be Marxists, or didn't you know that ?

The UK is increasing its economy, it is reducing the debts left behind by the last labour government and has more people in work. It is only the champagne socialists that sees any wrong in cutting welfare to those workshy who think they should get £30k for sitting at home doing nothing. How many people have never worked a day in their lives and get more that the national average wage for doing so.

Thank you for that, you've just convinced me and probably anyone else reading this, you really have no idea at all. You may be retired but I still work for a living, so I'm still in the real world.

Remember the economic projections George Osborne made when he first took office in 2010? http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/econ_fiscal_outlook_291110.pdf He as good as bragged about how he was going to completely eradicate the budget deficit by 2015, and how he was going to protect the UKs Credit rating,

“Our first benchmark is to cut the deficit more quickly to safeguard Britain’s credit rating. I know that we are taking a political gamble to set this up as a measure of success. Protecting the credit rating will not be easy… The pace of fiscal consolidation will be co-ordinated with monetary policy. And we will protect Britain’s credit rating and international reputation.”—George Osborne 2010,

Really? Well that was an epic fail.

Everyone across the political and economic spectrum both at home and abroad now accepts that there is absolutely no chance that the UK budget deficit will be eradicated by 2015 and remember what happened in 2013? The UK suffered the embarrassment of being stripped of its AAA ratings by the credit rating agencies for the first time since the 1970s.

By this election Osborne will have borrowed £207 BILLION more than he claimed he would and our national debt has risen by 50% in 5 years. Osborne has in fact increased the National Debt more than all the Labour governments in history combined.

All of this might be forgivable if our economy was improving, but the economy is way smaller than he claimed it was going to be back in 2010. Osborne's 2010 projections claimed that by the end of the 2010-15 parliament the nominal GDP of the UK economy would be £1,916 billion, however this has now been revised downwards to £1,788 billion.

So to recap, he borrowed £207 billion more than he said he would and as a result of his efforts the economy is now £128 billion smaller than he claimed it would be as a result of his policies. If this tosser had worked for me, he'd be long out the door looking for a new job by now.

Recovery? The UK economy has only recently returned to pre-crisis levels, that’s true; but that means under the Tories the entire UK economy has averaged a growth rate of 0%, yes 0% for 7 years! That’s the slowest economic recovery since the South Sea Bubble disaster in the 1720’s.

And under Labour the money had already run out, the bubble had burst and the debts incurred over the last 5 years were as a result of labours mismanagement and taking on those debts. Now how would labour have paid for the increases in welfare as more and more companies went broke and put more and more people on the dole, why by increasing taxes yet again. Then the local councils would have put up their taxes to pay for the champagne socialist lifestyle of their senior executives and gold plated final salary pensions. Then there would be the mass influx of unemployable immigrants costing the country a further £ trillion a year all paid for out of borrowing. Are you looking forward to the violent riots, strikes, blackouts, cost of living increase above inflation and the closure of hospitals because 1 year down the line Labour have spent more than they can steal from the working man.

 

[montelatici]

Typical, living on the dole and receiving free healthcare and he criticizes social democratic systems. Kind of like the T-Party types most living on Social Security and on Medicare protesting against "socialism".

 

[Phoenall]

Typical, living on the dole and receiving free healthcare and he criticizes social democratic systems. Kind of like the T-Party types most living on Social Security and on Medicare protesting against "socialism".

Living on a pension paid for by myself over 40 years of working, and health care is free for the over 60's but paid for by the workers in taxes and insurance taken direct from their wages. Have you followed what is happening in Greece, and how the impact will be faced by the US and its economy. That is socialism today and the muslims love it, they can work a fiddle getting £1000 a week driving a taxi and still claim dole and other welfare to pay for the weapons going into gaza.

 

[Challenger]

Where is the rabid Anti-Semitism or Blood Libel there? I personally think Tony Blair should be indicted for war crimes, but I still plan to vote Labour this year. Having particular views about an individual does not mean being prejudiced against a whole group. If Israel feels it needs Nuclear weapons for defensive purposes then surely any other country that feels the same should have them? That is clearly an unbiased view, as are his views on Gazan aspirations for statehood. If he feels he has the evidence to bring war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression charges against individual Israelis, then as a Jurist it is his duty to do so; in fact not doing so when in posession of such evidence, is not only showing bias but also corrupt or criminal intent, a.k.a. aiding and abetting. If he can overcome any obstacles put in his way by his corrupt and criminal opponents, so much the better, ultimately justice is served.

If you cant see it then it is no wonder you will vote Labour. But don't blame me when the UK ends up bankrupt morally and financially, and the muslims take over and start killing in the name of neo Marxism.

The UK is already bankrupt, morally and financially thanks to the Tories. Hang on gramps, you're betting confused again, according to you Mooslims are ISLAMO-FASCISTS, so they can't be NEO-MARXISTS can they. Never mind eh, have a nice sup of cocoa, then you can watch your favourite TV show and don't forget your meds.

They can as the biggest fascist happen to be Marxists, or didn't you know that ?

The UK is increasing its economy, it is reducing the debts left behind by the last labour government and has more people in work. It is only the champagne socialists that sees any wrong in cutting welfare to those workshy who think they should get £30k for sitting at home doing nothing. How many people have never worked a day in their lives and get more that the national average wage for doing so.

Thank you for that, you've just convinced me and probably anyone else reading this, you really have no idea at all. You may be retired but I still work for a living, so I'm still in the real world.

Remember the economic projections George Osborne made when he first took office in 2010? http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/econ_fiscal_outlook_291110.pdf He as good as bragged about how he was going to completely eradicate the budget deficit by 2015, and how he was going to protect the UKs Credit rating,

“Our first benchmark is to cut the deficit more quickly to safeguard Britain’s credit rating. I know that we are taking a political gamble to set this up as a measure of success. Protecting the credit rating will not be easy… The pace of fiscal consolidation will be co-ordinated with monetary policy. And we will protect Britain’s credit rating and international reputation.”—George Osborne 2010,

Really? Well that was an epic fail.

Everyone across the political and economic spectrum both at home and abroad now accepts that there is absolutely no chance that the UK budget deficit will be eradicated by 2015 and remember what happened in 2013? The UK suffered the embarrassment of being stripped of its AAA ratings by the credit rating agencies for the first time since the 1970s.

By this election Osborne will have borrowed £207 BILLION more than he claimed he would and our national debt has risen by 50% in 5 years. Osborne has in fact increased the National Debt more than all the Labour governments in history combined.

All of this might be forgivable if our economy was improving, but the economy is way smaller than he claimed it was going to be back in 2010. Osborne's 2010 projections claimed that by the end of the 2010-15 parliament the nominal GDP of the UK economy would be £1,916 billion, however this has now been revised downwards to £1,788 billion.

So to recap, he borrowed £207 billion more than he said he would and as a result of his efforts the economy is now £128 billion smaller than he claimed it would be as a result of his policies. If this tosser had worked for me, he'd be long out the door looking for a new job by now.

Recovery? The UK economy has only recently returned to pre-crisis levels, that’s true; but that means under the Tories the entire UK economy has averaged a growth rate of 0%, yes 0% for 7 years! That’s the slowest economic recovery since the South Sea Bubble disaster in the 1720’s.

And under Labour the money had already run out, the bubble had burst and the debts incurred over the last 5 years were as a result of labours mismanagement and taking on those debts. Now how would labour have paid for the increases in welfare as more and more companies went broke and put more and more people on the dole, why by increasing taxes yet again. Then the local councils would have put up their taxes to pay for the champagne socialist lifestyle of their senior executives and gold plated final salary pensions. Then there would be the mass influx of unemployable immigrants costing the country a further £ trillion a year all paid for out of borrowing. Are you looking forward to the violent riots, strikes, blackouts, cost of living increase above inflation and the closure of hospitals because 1 year down the line Labour have spent more than they can steal from the working man.

I'm not going to derail this thread any more with UK domestic politics but I will say this, this last post is utter bullshit.

Look at the historical facts; only two Labour governments have ever left office leaving the national debt higher than it was when they came to power and that was during the Wall Street Crash, when Ramsey MacDonald's government left office with a 12% increase in the debt and during the Financial sector insolvency crisis in 2008 when the Blair-Brown government left office with an 11% increase.

All the other Labour governments reduced the scale of the national debt when in office, Clement Attlee's 1945-51 government reduced the national debt by 40% of GDP despite having to rebuild the UK economy from the ruins of the Second World War. Harold Wilson's 1964-70 government reduced the national debt by 27% of GDP and even the Wilson-Callaghan government of 1974-79 managed to reduce the debt by 4% of GDP.

After Tory politicians like that bitch Thatcher, and agenda driven neo-liberal economists in the West had spent decades ensuring that financial markets were dangerously deregulated, the financial sector went on an unprecedented binge of at best reckless speculation and at worst outright criminality. Eventually the entire financial system got so clogged up with toxic junk that the credit markets froze up and virtually every major financial institution either went bust or only survived due to the biggest government interventions in human history.

After preaching a mantra of deregulated markets stabilising themselves and the evils of state interventions, this financial sector collapse should have been the death of the neo-liberal ideology.

However the neoliberals quickly cobbled together an alternative narrative; that rather than reckless gambling and financial sector criminality causing the crisis, it was actually caused by government overspending!

There has been more rioting in the UK during periods of Tory governments than there has during Labour governments since 1945, by the way.

 

[montelatici]

Typical, living on the dole and receiving free healthcare and he criticizes social democratic systems. Kind of like the T-Party types most living on Social Security and on Medicare protesting against "socialism".

Living on a pension paid for by myself over 40 years of working, and health care is free for the over 60's but paid for by the workers in taxes and insurance taken direct from their wages. Have you followed what is happening in Greece, and how the impact will be faced by the US and its economy. That is socialism today and the muslims love it, they can work a fiddle getting £1000 a week driving a taxi and still claim dole and other welfare to pay for the weapons going into gaza.

You did not pay for your pension, your contribution will be a fraction of what you will receive if you live a few more years, quit lying.

 

[Phoenall]

Typical, living on the dole and receiving free healthcare and he criticizes social democratic systems. Kind of like the T-Party types most living on Social Security and on Medicare protesting against "socialism".

Living on a pension paid for by myself over 40 years of working, and health care is free for the over 60's but paid for by the workers in taxes and insurance taken direct from their wages. Have you followed what is happening in Greece, and how the impact will be faced by the US and its economy. That is socialism today and the muslims love it, they can work a fiddle getting £1000 a week driving a taxi and still claim dole and other welfare to pay for the weapons going into gaza.

You did not pay for your pension, your contribution will be a fraction of what you will receive if you live a few more years, quit lying.

I paid 6% of my salary into my PRIVATE pension that was invested by the company running it. It is still investing in Israeli companies as they return the best figures for investment at 10% return.
So why do you LIE about other members when you know nothing about them at all.

 

[montelatici]

You lie about everything, and I catch you lying in 90% of your posts. So, I know you are lying now.

 

[Disir]

The man hailed by defenders as a world-class jurist didn’t think that having been paid to provide a legal briefing for the PLO might constitute a conflict of interest.

The indelible stain on the UN committee once chaired by William Schabas - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post

Here we go, folks.

Well that's the Hasbara version. Here's the reality, "My work for the PLO consisted of being sent five questions by email and providing a written response. I was given no documents by the PLO. I have had no relationship with it either before or after this brief request for an opinion in October 2012. I was not involved in advocacy or in campaigning for the PLO. I merely gave a technical legal answer to technical legal questions. There are many, many examples of judges sitting in cases where at some point in the past they were involved in providing legal advice to one of the parties. --William Schabas Q A William Schabas No evidence I m biased against Israel The Canadian Jewish News

Because he said so. He quit because it was over. At least Goldstone knew he screwed up, acknowledged he screwed up and said so.

 

[montelatici]

Goldstone was forced to recant. Happens a lot to Jews that criticize Israel/Jews, apparently. It happened to Ariel Toaff. He had to take a book out of publication.

 

[Lipush]

The man hailed by defenders as a world-class jurist didn’t think that having been paid to provide a legal briefing for the PLO might constitute a conflict of interest.

The indelible stain on the UN committee once chaired by William Schabas - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post

Here we go, folks.

That's what I told Billy-boy, but he almost bited my head off.