Argentina: The Zionist colonization of Judicial Power

We share this article by comrade Ismael Jalil, lawyer and part of the defense together with María del Carmen Verdú, in the case that DAIA is pursuing against Alejandro Bodart.

Automatic translation made by AI.

No wonder they hide it. They who self-refer to themselves with a presumed spirituality originating in time immemorial. They are usurpers. First of all, of the Semites in general, since they do not come from Shem (son of Noah) and neither are they originally from the basins of the rivers Nile, Euphrates and Tigris, but from the southeast of European Russia and they converted to Judaism (religion) a couple of centuries after their appearance as tribes of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Crimea. Later they usurped Jewish status and pretended to invoke the religion of those sons of Shem that assimilated them. And finally they usurped Palestine.

This historical reference to the Khazars who invented Zionism should not be confused. It is not correct to analyze the genocide that the Israeli state is carrying out on the Palestinian people from the false hypothesis of anti-Semitism. If we were to do so, we would fall into the trap that Zionism itself has set for humanity when it deploys its ruses to show itself as what it is not. That they have usurped the sacred status of Jews has shielded them. They take refuge in the Holocaust, they use it, which is the most repugnant way of relativizing one of the greatest wrongs that the human condition has ever received.

Anti-Semitism is the mask they use to reissue it without anyone being able to raise their voice or point out their hypocrisy, because if they do so, the conveniently colonized judicial apparatus immediately jumps on the button to persecute them with a semblance of legality.

In Argentina the synchrony is absolute. General coincidence between the DAIA (executing arm of Zionist policies and propaganda) that denounces, the Judiciary that immediately applies article 3 of law 23592 (against discrimination and racism), the hegemonic media that trivializes information, the traditional political parties that endorse it with their impudent silence and naturally the Executive Power that carpets Zionism and boasts about it.

For this reason, the cases against Alejandro Bodart and Vanina Biasi, both left-wing referents (the only Argentine electoral political expression that has unconditionally aligned itself with the Palestinian cause and has explicitly denounced the Zionism of the Israeli State as responsible for genocide, apartheid and racism), are especially relevant.

As in no other case, these cases are a reflection of the muzzle they want to install to cover up the Nazi crimes of the Zionist entity. And incidentally, to make the world think that history began on October 7, 2023.

They are doing poorly

When Bodart denounces and repudiates the crime of Shiren Abu Akleh, the Al Jazeera journalist in the hands of the TZAHAL or Israeli Defense Forces (defense always read ironically), it was May 2022, more than a year before October 7. And by assimilating the Zionists as Nazis, what he was doing was portraying an occupying force that makes death, apartheid, racism, supremacism and arbitrariness its raison d’être.

The Israeli government did not recognize the crime of its forces until a United Nations investigation so determined. What the occupying entity intended was to install the idea of a Hamas attack.

What Bodart did then was to denounce this situation and to qualify the Israeli entity as what nobody doubts today: an occupying force that surpasses the “qualities” of the Nazi army as the author of the greatest genocide recorded in the history of mankind so far in the twenty-first century.

Bodart’s denunciation is so accurate. We transcribe below what the Italian researcher and thinker, Enzo Traverso, states in his indispensable work “Gaza before History” to demonstrate what the usurper entity has done in the last twenty of the seventy-seven years of its illegitimate occupation.

“Since Israel’s withdrawal in 2005, the Gaza Strip has suffered constant attacks by the Tzahal resulting in thousands of deaths: 1400 in 2008 (vs. 13 Israelis), 170 in 2012, 2,200 in 2014. On March 30, 2018 a large peaceful demonstration against the blockade of the Strip ended in massacre: 189 dead and 6,000 wounded. In 2023, between January 1 and October 6, 2023, the IDF had already killed 248 Palestinians in the occupied territories and detained 5,200. Between 2008 and October 6, 2023, the IDF killed more than 6400 Palestinians of them, more than 5,000 in Gaza and wounded 158,440 while Israeli victims of the actions of Hamas and other Islamic groups were 310 and wounded 6,⁴⁶⁰¹.”

Notwithstanding this information, which was published on October 12, 2023 (five days after the Hamas operation), anyone who reviews the complete history of the Zionist occupation will know that the occupying entity carried out 26 massacres on defenseless civilian population.

Without counting the enormous number of missing persons whose remains remain under the ruins, a very serious information from the Palestinian Ministry of Health, supported by the United Nations, puts the number of deaths caused by the occupying entity at approximately 60,000.

At the end of June, health authorities in the Palestinian territory published a 1,227-page document identifying the victims of the tragedy. As of June 24, 2025, 31% of the deceased on this list were minors, eight died the same day they were born and four the following day. An estimate by the prestigious scientific journal The ^Lancet2 multiplies these figures by three.

It is true that the concept of genocide is specific to the legal sphere and it is necessary to be extremely rigorous when it comes to charging such an execrable crime. The UN Convention of 1948 contains the definition that makes the indictment of Netanyahu and his minister Galant unquestionable (the International Criminal Court first warned about the risk of violating that Convention and last November issued the arrest warrant for both criminals).

But what does the Convention violated by the Israeli entity say? Article II states that genocide means “any act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. And even this same norm describes the genocidal process: 1) killing of the members of the group; 2) serious injury to the physical or mental integrity of the members of the group; 3) intentional subjection of the group to conditions of existence that will lead to its physical destruction, in whole or in part; 4) preventing births within the group”.

As Feierstein cites in his “Introduction to Genocide Studies,” mass population killings in their classical conception were carried out in search of resources and territory.

“However, the concept of genocide arose to differentiate that classic modality from the decision to organize a systematic campaign to eliminate entire population groups, with the aim of eradicating them from the planet and/or to use terror to discipline the social whole. This is the modern form.

The paradoxical thing in our case is that the modern concept comes from a Polish jurist of Jewish religion named Raphael Lemkin who in his book “The Axis Rule in Occupied Europe” adds a transcendental element when describing genocide.

It has two parts: The first is the destruction of the national identity of the oppressed group (in Gaza the targeting of Universities, Mosques, Professors, men and women of science, arts, etc. constituted the first stage of the genocide), the other is the imposition of the national identity of the oppressor, which is the aim of the occupying entity.

Who can doubt that the Palestinian case is a modern textbook genocide?

Something similar applies to the Vanina Biasi case. The same modus operandi. She declares in solidarity with the Palestinian people, repudiates and denounces the atrocity of the occupying entity, reveals the nature of the capitalist domination it represents. Then DAIA denounces it. Although this time before a justice of exceptional rank such as the Federal Justice, that of Comodoro Py, but under the same accusation: violation of art. 3 of Law 23592 for anti-Semitism.

More than one naïve person thought that since the case fell under the jurisdiction of Judge Rafecas’ Court 6, it would follow a path of rationality. They were very wrong.

The colonization of the Judiciary by the DAIA is a task of unconditional recruitment of magistrates willing to sign any resolution that implies prohibiting the right to expression, opinion and the unrestricted defense of a universal value such as the validity of Human Rights. The colonization of the judiciary is aimed at shielding the usurper and genocidal entity called the State of Israel.

The colonization sometimes clashes with men and women who exalt the service of justice, generally located in places of lower procedural incidence. For example, Drs. Cruz Casas and Natalia Molina. It is not the same a judge of first instance in ordinary courts and their independence of criteria than those who in many cases occupy places of lesser procedural incidence. those who in many cases occupy places of review or resolution of higher instances and/or exceptional jurisdictions. Colonization is aimed at all of them, but preferably at the latter, which are the ones that determine the transcendence of the process.

The institutional damage it leads to does not seem to matter to the colonizer. What is serious is that it matters less to the colonized.

Why do they do it? That enters the realm of speculation, since no one will openly give their reason. Some retain a little embarrassment. There will surely be convinced. And that conviction may come from mimicking the genocidal entity. In exchange for what would be the next question.

Judge Fiumara, for example, operates as a flying witness for the lawsuit. They may also be so as a product of their ignorance or intellectual laziness. The opposition of the prosecutor to the dismissal of Bodart in the first instance was based “on the need to hold the oral trial to know more about the issue” (from the prosecutor Scanga in the hearing by zoom that surely must be among the effects of the original case). The determining factor is how criminal justice is used to discipline.

The use of an expansive criminal law criterion, in which far from clearly determining what is the conduct in violation of the law, the inference of the inference is enabled, is a violation of constitutional norms and mainly of the international covenants that are the law of the Argentine Nation.

We have listened to prosecutors and read rulings by judges in the Bodart case where something similar to this was said: “To maintain, as Bodart maintains, that Palestine should be free from the river to the sea is to support the elimination of the state of Israel and therefore to want to exterminate its population”. If there is one thing that is no longer surprising, it is the inventiveness of judicial operators when it comes to arguing for a sentence.

The right of opinion and expression on causes with tremendous human impact is forbidden to two political leaders of impeccable trajectory whose obligation is to issue an unconditional repudiation of a genocide. Two political leaders, moreover, from a country that can attest to the meaning of the modern way of mass killings.

It is said that the intervention of the criminal justice system must always be based on the criterion of last resort. That last reason that must intervene because it is understood that all previous alternatives have failed. This does not happen in these cases. The criminal proceeding is the only instance that is opened.

It is striking that the Argentine judges ignore the Kimel precedent of the IACHR, the ruling which clearly states that if the intervention is not minimal and also does not have the criterion of the last reason for intervention, it is in violation of Articles 9 and 13.1 of the Human Rights Convention^.

For the Argentine judges who prosecute these cases, “thoughts commit crimes”. Otherwise, they should condition criminal law to constitutional law. The violation of the right of opinion of two prominent political leaders is absolute.

But the judicial colonization does not respond to an arbitrary or mafia-like occurrence on the part of the DAIA. It has a clear political purpose and it is designed from the highest levels of Zionist “governance”.

A genocidal entity needs legitimization to avoid falling into the nets of a battered international justice. Its complicit operators or outstretched arms cannot afford to discuss Palestine in any other terms than “we are the Chosen People“. Any trace of rationality would put them out of the game. Because to discuss Palestine is to enable the anti-colonialist dispute.

The masks of Zionism, which are those of trumped-up anti-Semitism, would immediately fall off and we would enter into a discussion that would surely end with their condemnation.

It is a cause of the global south insofar as Palestine is the cause of the peoples oppressed not by a religion, but by a common imperialist and capitalist enemy.

Discussing Palestine exposes genocide insofar as the supremacism of those who claim to be “the chosen people”, racism (the Palestinians are subhuman, say officials of the occupying entity State of Israel, and in Argentina the Vice President of the DAIA went so far as to maintain that the only innocent people in Palestine would be children under 4 years of age) would be discussed. In this way the lives of the Palestinians do not count and therefore they can be disposed of.

Discussing Palestine exposes them in front of the real Jews who uphold with nobility the Never Again Holocaust. That do not admit to lower the human condition and much less that it is done in their name.

That is why judicial colonization is indispensable. It is about silencing dissident voices. Discipline as the first ratio. Judicial colonization is as important as media colonization.

But there is something they ignore and if they do not ignore it, they relativize it, and that is that the cases of Bodart or Biasi are not the cases of those named, but collective cases. How far will they be able to go with them? They have procedural limits, the street does not.

There is a growing popular mobilization. A Palestinian tide has spread throughout the length and breadth of the country. What they pretend in the opacity of the dark offices will be disarticulated by the fury unleashed in the streets.

Netanyahu and his associates (including the Argentine false prophet), so prone to biblical quotations, should know what awaits the genocidaires and their accomplices when they want to emerge from their wretched existences:

“Anyone suffering from such a contaminating disease should wear torn clothes, wear their hair uncombed, cover the lower part of their face and shout, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’”

I think it is a passage from Corinth. Let them find out, ours is the immediate ceasefire and the right to a Free Palestine from the river to the sea.

Mendoza. Argentina. July 2025