Breaking: the President of the International Court of Justice (@CIJ_ICJ), Julia Sebutinde, plagiarized sections of her dissenting opinion (icj-cij.org/node/204162) in which she voted against all provisional measures of South African's case of Israel's genocide of Palestinians.
On p. 6, Sebutinde writes: ""The name “Palestine” applied vaguely to a region that for the 400 years before World War I was part of the Ottoman Empire."
This sentence was plagiarized word for word from a 2021 article published by Douglas J. Feith by the @HudsonInstitute titled, "The Forgotten History of the Term "Palestine," (hudson.org/node/44363) in which he writes:
"“Palestine” applied vaguely to a region that for the 400 years before World War I was part of the Ottoman empire."
It gets worse. Sebutinde plagiarized the next two sentences as well. She writes:
"In 135 CE, after stamping out the second Jewish insurrection of the province of Judea or Judah, the Romans renamed that province “Syria Palaestina” (or “Palestinian Syria”). The Romans did this as a punishment, to spite the “Y’hudim” (Jewish population) and to obliterate the link between them and their province (known in Hebrew as Y’hudah). The name “Palaestina” was used in relation to the people known as the Philistines and found along the Mediterranean coast."
These 2 sentences were also plagiarized from the same Feith piece, in which he writes:
"In 135 CE, after stamping out the province of Judea’s second insurrection, the Romans renamed the province Syria Palaestina—that is, “Palestinian Syria.” They did so resentfully, as a punishment, to obliterate the link between the Jews (in Hebrew, Y’hudim and in Latin Judaei) and the province (the Hebrew name of which was Y’hudah). “Palaestina” referred to the Philistines, whose home base had been on the Mediterranean coast."
Sebutinde make a pitiful attempt to change a word here or there, but this is a textbook case of plagiarism. Feith's piece is not cited in her legal opinion, even though she copied and pasted multiple sentences from the piece.
What a joke of judge. She's making a mockery of the ICJ and should be removed immediately.
On p. 6, Sebutinde writes: ""The name “Palestine” applied vaguely to a region that for the 400 years before World War I was part of the Ottoman Empire."
This sentence was plagiarized word for word from a 2021 article published by Douglas J. Feith by the @HudsonInstitute titled, "The Forgotten History of the Term "Palestine," (hudson.org/node/44363) in which he writes:
"“Palestine” applied vaguely to a region that for the 400 years before World War I was part of the Ottoman empire."
It gets worse. Sebutinde plagiarized the next two sentences as well. She writes:
"In 135 CE, after stamping out the second Jewish insurrection of the province of Judea or Judah, the Romans renamed that province “Syria Palaestina” (or “Palestinian Syria”). The Romans did this as a punishment, to spite the “Y’hudim” (Jewish population) and to obliterate the link between them and their province (known in Hebrew as Y’hudah). The name “Palaestina” was used in relation to the people known as the Philistines and found along the Mediterranean coast."
These 2 sentences were also plagiarized from the same Feith piece, in which he writes:
"In 135 CE, after stamping out the province of Judea’s second insurrection, the Romans renamed the province Syria Palaestina—that is, “Palestinian Syria.” They did so resentfully, as a punishment, to obliterate the link between the Jews (in Hebrew, Y’hudim and in Latin Judaei) and the province (the Hebrew name of which was Y’hudah). “Palaestina” referred to the Philistines, whose home base had been on the Mediterranean coast."
Sebutinde make a pitiful attempt to change a word here or there, but this is a textbook case of plagiarism. Feith's piece is not cited in her legal opinion, even though she copied and pasted multiple sentences from the piece.
What a joke of judge. She's making a mockery of the ICJ and should be removed immediately.
It gets worse. She also plagiarized at least 4 sentences from The Jewish Virtual Library (jewishvirtuallibrary.org/myths-and-fact…).
Here are the 4 sentences from Sebutinde, and then the 4 sentences from the Jewish Virtual Library immediately following:
1. Sebutinde: "Prior to the establishment of “British Mandatory Palestine”, Palestinian Arabs viewed themselves as having a unified identity with the Arabs in the subregion until the twentieth century.
1. Jewish Virtual Library: "Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity."
2. Sebutinde: "When the distinguished Arab American historian, Professor Philip Hitti, testified against the Partition of Mandatory Palestine before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he remarked: “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history; absolutely not.”"
2. Jewish Virtual Library: "When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."
3. Sebutinde: "In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
3. Jewish Virtual Library: "In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.""
4. Sebutinde: "The first Palestine-Arab Congress which convened in Jerusalem from 27 January to 10 February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, adopted a resolution in which it, inter alia, considered Palestine as an integral part of Arab Syria."
4. Jewish Virtual Library: "When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted: We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time.
Needless to say, Sebutinde is a pathetic excuse for a judge. If you are going to plagiarize, at least do so from a reputable source. At least, that way, you may be a dishonest person, but at least you'd get the facts right? The insanity of plagiarizing from the Jewish Virtual Library here is that she is both dishonestly representing other people's work as her own, while also spreading misinformation.
How the heck this person is the world's top judge is truly mind-blowing.
Here are the 4 sentences from Sebutinde, and then the 4 sentences from the Jewish Virtual Library immediately following:
1. Sebutinde: "Prior to the establishment of “British Mandatory Palestine”, Palestinian Arabs viewed themselves as having a unified identity with the Arabs in the subregion until the twentieth century.
1. Jewish Virtual Library: "Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity."
2. Sebutinde: "When the distinguished Arab American historian, Professor Philip Hitti, testified against the Partition of Mandatory Palestine before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he remarked: “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history; absolutely not.”"
2. Jewish Virtual Library: "When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."
3. Sebutinde: "In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
3. Jewish Virtual Library: "In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.""
4. Sebutinde: "The first Palestine-Arab Congress which convened in Jerusalem from 27 January to 10 February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, adopted a resolution in which it, inter alia, considered Palestine as an integral part of Arab Syria."
4. Jewish Virtual Library: "When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted: We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time.
Needless to say, Sebutinde is a pathetic excuse for a judge. If you are going to plagiarize, at least do so from a reputable source. At least, that way, you may be a dishonest person, but at least you'd get the facts right? The insanity of plagiarizing from the Jewish Virtual Library here is that she is both dishonestly representing other people's work as her own, while also spreading misinformation.
How the heck this person is the world's top judge is truly mind-blowing.
Correction: In the first tweet in this thread, I should have noted, the dissenting opinion (w/the plagiarism) was with regard to the "Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem." I incorrectly implied it was on the genocide opinion. My apologies.
Here's another entire paragraph of plagiarism
On p. 7, Sebutinde writes (in describing the borders of British Palestine) (icj-cij.org/sites/default/…):
"The line in the north emerged from Anglo-French negotiations in 1923. The one in the south was fixed by treaties in the mid-1920s between Britain and the new nation of Saudi Arabia. The border between the Mandate of Palestine and the Mandate of Mesopotamia (Iraq) was of little immediate importance, given that the line was in the middle of an uninhabited desert and Britain controlled both sides. That line was finally fixed through an exchange of letters in 1932.
This is virtually a word-for-word copy from Douglas J. Feith's 2021 piece (hudson.org/node/44363):
"The line in the north emerged from Anglo-French negotiations in 1923. The one in the south was fixed by treaties in the mid-1920s between Britain and the new nation of Saudi Arabia. The border between Mandate Palestine and Mandate Mesopotamia was of little immediate importance, given that it was in the middle of an uninhabited desert and Britain controlled both sides. That line was finally fixed through an exchange of letters in 1932."
On p. 7, Sebutinde writes (in describing the borders of British Palestine) (icj-cij.org/sites/default/…):
"The line in the north emerged from Anglo-French negotiations in 1923. The one in the south was fixed by treaties in the mid-1920s between Britain and the new nation of Saudi Arabia. The border between the Mandate of Palestine and the Mandate of Mesopotamia (Iraq) was of little immediate importance, given that the line was in the middle of an uninhabited desert and Britain controlled both sides. That line was finally fixed through an exchange of letters in 1932.
This is virtually a word-for-word copy from Douglas J. Feith's 2021 piece (hudson.org/node/44363):
"The line in the north emerged from Anglo-French negotiations in 1923. The one in the south was fixed by treaties in the mid-1920s between Britain and the new nation of Saudi Arabia. The border between Mandate Palestine and Mandate Mesopotamia was of little immediate importance, given that it was in the middle of an uninhabited desert and Britain controlled both sides. That line was finally fixed through an exchange of letters in 1932."
Sebutinde also plagiarized heavily from a Prager U video. (youtube.com/watch?v=76Nytv…)
Sebutinde, p.9: "the British Government offered the Palestinian Arabs 80 per cent of Mandatory Palestine (Transjordan), and the Jews the remaining 20 per cent (Palestine) in a suggested split that was heavily in favour of the former. Despite the tiny size of their proposed State, the Jews voted to accept this offer, but the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion against the British mandate."
Prager U: "The British offered them 80 percent of the disputed territory; the Jews, the remaining 20 percent. Yet, despite the tiny size of their proposed state, the Jews voted to accept this offer. But the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion."
Sebutinde: “Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met at Camp David, with Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Yasser Arafat in 2000, to conclude a new two-State plan. Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian State in all of Gaza, and 94 per cent of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The Palestinian leader flatly rejected the offer. In the words of President Bill Clinton of the United States, “Arafat was here 14 days and said no to everything.” Instead, the Palestinians launched a bloody wave of suicide bombings that killed over 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands more, on buses, in wedding halls, and in pizza parlours.”
Prager U: "In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met at Camp David with Palestinian Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat to conclude a new two-state plan. Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its capital. But the Palestinian leader rejected the offer. In the words of US President Bill Clinton, Arafat was “Here 14 days and said ‘no’ to everything.” Instead, the Palestinians launched a bloody wave of suicide bombings that killed over 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands more – on buses, in wedding halls, and in pizza parlours."
Sebutinde, p.9: "the British Government offered the Palestinian Arabs 80 per cent of Mandatory Palestine (Transjordan), and the Jews the remaining 20 per cent (Palestine) in a suggested split that was heavily in favour of the former. Despite the tiny size of their proposed State, the Jews voted to accept this offer, but the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion against the British mandate."
Prager U: "The British offered them 80 percent of the disputed territory; the Jews, the remaining 20 percent. Yet, despite the tiny size of their proposed state, the Jews voted to accept this offer. But the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion."
Sebutinde: “Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met at Camp David, with Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Yasser Arafat in 2000, to conclude a new two-State plan. Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian State in all of Gaza, and 94 per cent of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The Palestinian leader flatly rejected the offer. In the words of President Bill Clinton of the United States, “Arafat was here 14 days and said no to everything.” Instead, the Palestinians launched a bloody wave of suicide bombings that killed over 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands more, on buses, in wedding halls, and in pizza parlours.”
Prager U: "In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met at Camp David with Palestinian Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat to conclude a new two-state plan. Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 94% of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its capital. But the Palestinian leader rejected the offer. In the words of US President Bill Clinton, Arafat was “Here 14 days and said ‘no’ to everything.” Instead, the Palestinians launched a bloody wave of suicide bombings that killed over 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands more – on buses, in wedding halls, and in pizza parlours."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
