Recent Posts

Show posts from buddies only

France did nothing wrong.

Tony Blair, by the length of the equator. He was the best British prime minister of the last 50+ years.

Tony Blair the GOAT

Am I crazy or is there an outside chance for this guy to appeal to dejected and disaffected college kids off the back of his whole "gay, anti-war, pro-immigration" thing?

between jill stein, cornel west and claudia de la cruz, the "dejected and disaffected college kid" demographic has plenty of better options than a right wing guy who thinks the department of education should be abolished and wants to end federal financial aid programs

Even before the trial started, it was frequently commented on that Trump was not nearly as active on the trail as he was in his previous campaigns.

Trump on the side of Israel Apartheid shocks no one, as his latest call for crushing pro-Palestine protests is further proof of his ultra-pro-Israel record (who is more strident than the already pro-Israel occupant Joe Biden).

What exactly should Biden even say in the case of an acquittal or hung jury? That part confuses me unless he tries to pull a Harris post-Rittenhouse trial and attack the justice system.

With any outcome, Biden should say something like "as an American, I respect the rule of law in this country.  The justice system has operated as it was intended, and the jury has spoken."

Really weird thing about Newfoundland politics. Rural-urban polarization is nothing new there, but traditionally it's the rurals that favour Liberals and St. John's favouring Tories, including at the federal level - as recently as 2006 when Harper won the two St. John's seats while losing the 5 rural seats.

To make things even weirder, if I'm not mistaken, the St. John's area is traditionally the Irish Catholic dominated part of the province, while the rest of the island is more protestant and Anglo-Saxon.

So that's urban Irish Catholics favouring Tories, and rural WASPs favouring Liberals. This unusual polarization seems to be fading and polarization is heading in a more "normal" direction, i.e. rural right and urban left. But I can't think of any other part of the Anglosphere where the Catholics were traditionally the Tories, and protestants were more anti-Tory.

https://twitter.com/academic_la/status/1794838600041001106?t=sgI2X4pydY7wJ1AVkCp...

That’s horrible, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It’s objectively not genocide, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a horrific act.  And you can’t even argue that Israel was targeting such high-ranking Hamas officials that it was worth the risk or whatever.  These were not top guys.  This strike never should’ve been launched.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, the area hit is a designated "safe zone".

This isn't the first time that Israel has hit a "safe zone" either.

Time to reconsider the "objectively not genocide" part.

That’s not genocide.  A war crime?  Quite possibly, but not genocide.  Words have meaning.

Maybe you think that I looked up "genocide" in a dictionary and using the term willy-nilly.

That is not the case.

When I talking about "genocide", I am using the term as defined in the Genocide Convention.

And I am going by the definition established by the Genocide Convention as well.  The difference is you’re using it in a wildly inaccurate manner.  Whether you’re doing so deliberately or due to genuine ignorance is not for me to say, but by that definition, Israel’s actions are clearly not genocide.  It isn’t even a close call.

We both know that the ICC bring charges against individuals not against countries, but it's not much of a stretch that the charges against Netanyahu and Gallant also applies to Israel.

Let's look at these charges.

• Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;
• Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
• Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);
  
• Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);
• Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;
• Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);
• Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).

Do they not sound a whole lot like genocide to you?

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:  

(a) Killing members of the group;  

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;  

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;  

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;  

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The only ones of those I think you could make a serious argument are occurring are starvation of civilians as a method of war as a war crime and deaths caused by such as a crime against humanity.  What I have yet to see is compelling hard evidence that this is the result of a deliberate, willful policy sanctioned by Netanyahu and Gallant.  I have not yet seen such evidence, but if such comes out (and again, I’m talking compelling, hard evidence not some rando on Twitter or at an NGO saying “there is a famine, this must be deliberate; looks like genocide to me!”) then this would be a very different conversation.  If such evidence emerges then I will adjust my views accordingly and I think that’s perfectly reasonable.

Let look at what Netanyahu and Gallant themselves have said.

“you must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember”

- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu was referring to the genocide of the Amalekites at the hands of the Israelites.

IDF soldiers heard the message from Netanyahu loud and clear.

They were coming to Gaza to "wipe off the seed of Amalek" and there are no "uninvolved civilians".

https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1733116719668113618

“[Israel is] imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

- Defence Minister Yoav Gallant

This one is self-evident. Nothing was left for interpretation.

Some gross demagoguery, but no more than that.  Pretty sure Netanyahu is simply talking about Hamas as I believe the Amalekites tried to wipe out the Jewish people and if so, then I have no problem with that tbh.  Wiping out Hamas is what wild success looks like here from a military standpoint.  The “human animals” bit of the Gallant quote is pretty bad though, no two ways about it.

The Israeli soldiers chanting that are bad people, but actual actions and/or written evidence (ex: government or military documents, memos, etc) speaking to the intent and direct knowledge/sign-off of specific individuals is far more important than words, even odious words like Gallant’s (which I am in no way defending, to be clear)

Edit: Yeah, “Amalek” is often used in Israel as a catch all term for folks like the Iranian regime, the Nazis, Hamas, etc who seek to wipe out the Jewish people.

Race: White
Gender: Female
Age: 44
Occupation: Restaurant hostess
Personal income: $29k
Education: High school graduate
Current city: Houston, TX
Hometown: Small town in East Texas
Marital Status: Divorced, has two ex-husbands
Children: Has 4 kids
Religion: Baptist

Add to that it's not even like this is liberal arts or something. It's pretty damn important that you have the most competent doctors possible, not ones who flunk basic anatomy exams.

 For who is it important? We know that when Black people have Black doctors they have better patient outcomes across all types of medicine.

Do Black patients fare better with Black doctors?