Biden had this one chance to get back at Netanyahu for all the humiliations. The Republicans would scream murder but what else could they do to the Democrats? Win the legislature, the executive or the judiciary?
But Biden didn’t. Which means he either is a glutton for punishment and has a kink for humiliation or that Netanyahu is not the one on control here and this has been Biden’s genocide all along.
Yet the kahanists came back and now they’re running the National Security ministry and Netanyahu depends on them.
And North Korea is a Democratic Republic.
Conflating Israel with Jews is antisemitic.
If it had been perpetrated against Israelis you would not be saying this.
Any state department gaslighting to hasbara this?
Narrowing down the options to apartheid/genocide and the abolition of the Jewish character of Israel. In other words killing off the last vestiges of a non-fascist version of Zionism that a “small Israel” could allow.
So, liberal Zionists: which side are you on?
The definition you insist on is not the only one with consequences. Arguably, in the Trump-Netanyahu era, the legal one might be the one with the least amount of consequences…
It also not the one used for the English Wikipedia. I told you to be careful with words because you were using the legal definition to argue against the scholarly one. Sticking to the legal definition doesn’t make you careful per se. And I’m not sure I understand what “throwing around” is happening here. This is not the Lord’s name to not be taken in vain.
Be careful with the words here. The ICJ is the final decider about one specific definition of genocide. However, there is nothing that says that is the sole valid definition of genocide. In fact:
According to Ernesto Verdeja, associate professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, there are three ways to conceptualise genocide other than the legal definition: in academic social science, in international politics and policy, and in colloquial public usage.
- The academic social science approach does not require proof of intent,[11] and social scientists often define genocide more broadly.[12]
- The international politics and policy definition centres around prevention policy and intervention and may actually mean “large-scale violence against civilians” when used by governments and international organisations.
- Lastly, Verdeja says the way the general public colloquially uses “genocide” is usually “as a stand-in term for the greatest evils”.[11] This is supported by political scientist Kurt Mundorff who highlights how to the general public genocide is “simply mass murder carried out on a grand scale”.[13]
Do those cartels want Bukele? Because this is how they get Bukele.
Also, it bears mentioning that this would place minors at the hands of the “Jewish Power”-controlled National Security ministry, an extremist kahanist group headed by a convicted terrorist-supporter, and of whose many members belonged formerly to a banned terrorist and racist group.
I think this law is about “convicted” kids, as opposed to “just” administrative detention.
Also in the article, they passed a law for deporting family members of “terrorists”. And this includes Israeli Arabs, supposedly “full citizens” of the totally not-apartheid “only democracy”.
Let them doxx themselves and support the Hind Rajab Foundation which is trying to get individual legal proceedings on them, especially the dual citizens: https://www.hindrajabfoundation.org/
No, because he is pushing bad history: https://youtu.be/FSN6dL5MUUM?si=crSyFD6JMGuGsfkm
The German wikipedia can make its own editorial decisions. They also don’t have a Rohingya genocide article, only an article about the Rohingya genocide case at the ICJ. The English Wikipedia has two articles. It would seem the crux of the matter is that the Germans treat the word genocide as a purely legal term and therefore wait for the ICJ decision, whereas the English treat the word as a topic on which a scholarly academic consensus can be pronounced, in addition to the legal proceedings. One can argue back and forth about which approach has more or less merit, but they are both valid.
Edit: grammar
Thoughts and prayers.
Deep respect.
If you don’t want to be crying again in 2028, start working now.
Bresheeth was released without charge on 2 November, after spending a night in custody, but remains under investigation.
What the fuck does that mean? I didn’t know the UK laws were so authoritarian. So what, we arrest you for making a speech, detain you for a night, and then let you go without charge? And no repercussions for the inconvenience?
And how does “remains under investigation” not constitute intimidation?
It’s so funny how all this is only a problem within a capitalist frame of reference.