Keeponstalin
Trump's interests are monetary and idolization, not ideological. I could definitely see Trump ally more with Saudi Arabia over Israel if he thinks it makes himself look good, and I could definitely see SA be more willing than Israel to do what Trump wants. He has absolutely no problem with the genocide itself, but there is the off chance that his narcissism could end up helping Palestinians. I hope that's the case, but I won't hold my breath. There are plenty of Christian Zionists in his cabinet that only want to accelerate the genocide. Trump really is like a Russian Roulette, it's impossible to know what he'll do
That's such a sick painting
In that case Austria and Germany would also find Albert Einstein, Hannah Ardent, and many more to be antisemitic for their letter to the NYT
One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
- Martin Luther King Jr. in Birmingham Jail 1963
Their Rule 4:
No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don’t question the statehood of Israel.
[email protected] removed my comment for de-tangling the conflation of antisemitism and anti-zionism. A dangerous conflation that is genuinely antisemitic and fuels antisemitic hate as it conflates the actions of Israel and Zionism to all Jewish people and Judaism.
This prioritization of the German definition, the adopted IHRA definition, is promoting antisemtitism and is diametrically opposed to the 'No antisemitism' aspect of the rule. The definition has been condemned by the writer of the definition, a multitude of human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch (HRW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), B’Tselem, Peace Now, and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), and over 120 leading scholars of anti-semitism.
Germany Is Trying to Combat Antisemitism. Experts Warn a New Resolution May Do the Opposite
Fifteen Israeli nongovernmental organizations, including the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, B'Tselem and Peace Now, issued an open letter in September stating their concern that the resolution, especially the IHRA definition, could be weaponized to "silence public dissent."
This could also affect Jewish voices speaking out for Palestinian rights and opposing the occupation, they added. "Paradoxically, the resolution may therefore undermine, not protect, the diversity of Jewish life in Germany," the letter argued.
Rights groups urge UN not to adopt IHRA anti-Semitism definition
"The IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe,” the letter said.
US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Israeli rights group B’Tselem, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) were among the signatories
The letter is the latest attempt by human rights advocates to urge the UN not to adopt the IHRA definition. In November, more than 120 scholars called on the world body to reject the definition, due to its “divisive and polarising” effect.
128 scholars ask UN not to adopt IHRA definition of anti-Semitism
In a statement published on Thursday, the 128 scholars, who include leading Jewish academics at Israeli, European, United Kingdom and United States universities, said the definition has been “hijacked” to protect the Israeli government from international criticism
Why the man who drafted the IHRA definition condemns its use
The drafter of what later became popularly known as the EUMC or IHRA definition of antisemitism,including its associated examples, was the U.S. attorney Kenneth S. Stern. However, in written evidence submitted to the US Congress last year, Stern charged that his original definition had been used for an entirely different purpose to that for which it had been designed. According to Stern it had originally been designed as a ”working definition” for the purpose of trying to standardise data collection about the incidence of antisemitic hate crime in different countries. It had never been intended that it be used as legal or regulatory device to curb academic or political free speech. Yet that is how it has now come to be used. In the same document Stern specifically condemns as inappropriate the use of the definition for such purposes, mentioning in particular the curbing of free speech in UK universities, and referencing Manchester and Bristol universities as examples. Here is what he writes:
The EUMC “working definition” was recently adopted in the United Kingdom, and applied to campus. An “Israel Apartheid Week” event was cancelled as violating the definition. A Holocaust survivor was required to change the title of a campus talk, and the university [Manchester] mandated it be recorded, after an Israeli diplomat [ambassador Regev] complained that the title violated the definition.[See here]. Perhaps most egregious, an off-campus group citing the definition called on a university to conduct an inquiry of a professor (who received her PhD from Columbia) for antisemitism, based on an article she had written years before. The university [Bristol] then conducted the inquiry. And while it ultimately found no basis to discipline the professor, the exercise itself was chilling and McCarthy-like. [square brackets added – GW]
This genocide is America's just as much as it is Israel's. We are the ones providing unconditional support to Israel, billions worth of military weapons, at the taxpayers expense. We are the ones providing international cover by vetoing multiple UN resolutions.
Not only is a weapons embargo incredibly popular, required by International and US Law, and the morally correct position; a weapons embargo would also free up those billions of dollars to go to healthcare, to housing, to education, to infrastructure, ect.
We also absolutely have the obligation to significantly fund humanitarian aid to Palestine, since all the death and destruction has happened with US Weapons and profited the US businesses creating those weapons.
Standing with Palestine is standing with the American people. Because we can change those billions going to their eradication, to instead go to helping the wellbeing of Americans and Palestinians.
Pretty sure they're using nm to represent nautical miles..
Speak for yourself
Progressive policies that a majority of Americans support
Democrats' Working-Class Failures, Analysis Finds, Are 'Why Trump Beat Harris'
2024 Post-Election Report: A retrospective and longitudinal data analysis on why Trump beat Harris
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz's Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
XCOM2 with Long War of the Chosen Mod.
Turn based, Grindy, Unforgiving.
In 2024, military censorship in Israel reached the most extreme levels since +972 Magazine began collecting data in 2011. Over the course of the year, the censor completely banned the publication of 1,635 articles and partially censored another 6,265. On average, the censor intervened in about 21 news reports per day last year — more than double the previous peak of about 10 daily interventions recorded during the last war in Gaza in 2014 (Operation Protective Edge), and over three times the non-war-time average of 6.2 per day.
Under Israeli law, any article dealing with the broadly-defined category of “security issues” must undergo military censorship review, and editorial teams are responsible for deciding which piece to submit based on their own judgement.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 168 Palestinian journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza by the Israeli military during the war, more than in any other recorded violent conflict in recent decades. Other organizations place the number as high as 232. In collaborative investigations with Forbidden Stories, +972 revealed a pattern of Gazan journalists killed by the army merely for operating drones, or being attacked by army drones when clearly identified as press. Additionally, Israel treats journalists working for media outlets affiliated with Hamas as legitimate military targets, and on more than one occasion claimed that other journalists it killed were connected to Hamas, usually without presenting any evidence.
At the same time, Israel has been systematically arresting and imprisoning Palestinian journalists from both Gaza and the West Bank, often without charges, as a form of punishment for critical reporting. This repression has accelerated during the war, as seen in the banning of media outlets such as Al-Mayadeen and Al-Jazeera from operating in Israel
That's insane. The supremacy and dehumanization here is crazy