Please read the actual bill, not just the comments against it. As many bills, it simply is a hodgepodge of different issues packed into one confusing bill.Well, I am sure that is already illegal. But, what does it have to do with the teaching of history? — Questioner
That's the way to portray something like DEI in this light. The bill basically say that you shouldn't do this or that bizarre thing and then makes things what ought to be educated, things from slavery and the holocaust to saluting the flag.Well, I am sure that is already illegal. But, what does it have to do with the teaching of history? — Questioner
Where? Honestly, please show where the law specifically infringes on free speech.Nevertheless, the stop-WOKE law has specifically infringed on free speech. — Questioner
Lol. It's not an analogy of anything that the utter stupidity of that kind of thinking. The point of my example is how easy it is to fire people in America. It's hugely different in Europe. In the US, if you are layed off, you'll get at worst few hours to clean your belongings and go out. For example in Finland it's far difficult to fire people.Your analogy misrepresents and diminishes the goals of progressive policy, which in part seek to address systemic racism. — Questioner
When you can be fired for any reason at any time, this creates an environment where these kind of issues raise really fears as basically it's so easy for people to loose their jobs. And then some kind of training can be portrayed to be this awful thing. For one segment of the population it's DEI, for another segment of the voters it is patriotic values. Oh, the horror!At US firms, fired employees typically have short meetings with their employer or HR manager on why they've been fired. They usually only have hours or days to pack their belongings and leave, Meyer said.
Part of the reason for this is the country's "at-will" employment contracts between workers and their companies. "At-will" contracts are those that allow employers to fire subordinates for any reason at any time, so long as it's not discriminatory.
Do they?Persons must pursue truth, knowledge, honesty, open-mindness, justice, impartiality, objectivity, etc. in order to fulfill their rational telos. — Bob Ross
Well, not on the side Western allies, at least. But in the case of Stalin's Soviet Union, remember that Russian soldiers were fed propaganda that only the dogs and the unborn in Germany were innocent. The whole mass rape is a collective effort in acting revenge on the civilian populace. Remember that the German military and Nazi Germany treated totally differently the Dutch compared to the subhumans like Russians and the war attrocities in the Eastern front were on a totally different level. And the Soviet security apparatus used extensively and systematically torture.It's telling in any case, that however grotesque WWII was, at least on the Allied side there was no policy of torture. It happened but these were low level decisions and it wasn't systematic. — Benkei
Exactly, this shows the hypocrisy of those who promote the Pro-Russian stance.If their rationale was just NATOphobia, then what would the land grabbing accomplish anyway? — jorndoe
Never said such thing. In the end even the most ruthless dictatorship has to have a "domestic support", namely of the security apparatus. Putin has his followers, just as Trump has his followers. But likely not everybody is in Russia happy about Putin's adventures, but who are they to say it, when you can be sent to jail for speaking out.Well you seem to have just disproven your own point then since if Russia foreign policy depends on domestic political support, which you claim the Russian state doesn't have, then obviously the foreign policy of waging war in Ukraine would have collapsed by now due to depending on domestic political support which is insufficient to support the policy. — boethius
We've actually discussed this a year ago, I put the evidence there, starting from the information given by the migrants themselves. And now when Russia did the same, authorities in Finland weren't so clueless what to do as in 2016. So look it up.Well feel free to produce this evidence. — boethius
In the older PF I was saying this before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, that there seem to be no WMD in Iraq. Naturally everybody understanding the situation then understood there's no link between Saddam and OBL.Not sure you're aware of this — boethius
Again wrong. It's really difficult to explain in more simple terms:You argue that Russia had zero reason to invade Ukraine as the US (and also NATO) declaring it's intention that Ukraine would join NATO doesn't matter ... but also that it is in fact Russia that was threatening Ukraine (and also Finland) all along and therefore Ukraine joining NATO (which you also argue can't actually happen because of Hungary) was a reasonable response to Russian aggressive language. — boethius
So a good defence is to invade and annex parts of neighboring states that Russia has first recognized to be independent sovereign states and recognized their borders. That's the "good defence"? It's this idea that makes your argumentation a crazy. Yet understandable when you want fo defend Putin.Is Russia counter strategy optimal?
Well obviously not optimal as nothing is, but it is a rational response of basically a good defence is a good offence. — boethius
So how much is Russia winning now and which step are we on?Completely familiar ... but even more familiar is the exact same script in Syria:
1. Russian army is incompetent, hahahahah
2. "Resistance" is winning the information war, so many videos of "resistance" victories online!
3. Gains Russian army are making mean nothing
4. The people Russia are fighting are freedom fighters, not a single fanatical extremist among them
5. We need to pour arms into the situation to give Russia their Afghanistan! Hurrah!!!
6. Russia is winning ... but playing unfair!!! Boohoohooo
7. Chemical attack is going to happen
8. Anyday now, chemical attack since Russia is winning on the ground, but Putin and Assad are so evil they'll use chemical warfare when their wining! (obviously if they were actually losing we'd just let that play out into a failed state).
9. Chemical attack is coming ... it's coming ... Assad and Putin are just that crazy, and they know we'll be upset about a surprise chemical attack!!! And they know we'll easily find out!! And it will isolate Russia on the world stage and totally backfire!! But nothing can stop their evil machinations!!!
10. Chemical attack! Chemical attack!
We're on step 9 of this play. — boethius
The above is quote is from the actual bill proposal. Does what it says limit speech? Employment practice and free speech are bit different issues.What about it being bad for limiting speech? For instance: is the idea that some problems cannot be solved with boilerplate language about colorblindness so dangerous and meritless that it ought to be illegal? — ToothyMaw
For the subject, yes, and this subject can easily understand that it isn't the objective truth.But subjective truth is true. — Questioner
It doesn't look good on paper, it simply looks absurd. You don't need a law to say it's NOT OK to say " Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex". How about a law that says that it's NOT OK to educate children that pedophiles have the right to sexually molest children?It might look good on paper, but in practice it is having a very chilling effect on education and freedom of speech. Teachers are being intimidated. — Questioner
How? The only one's truly promoting festivities and celebrations are those who are selling something for the occasion.We definitely need to repell celebrations of that type — Alonsoaceves
Was that a Freudian slip? Diversity, not diversion.In the US, the First Amendment protects free speech, and it was used to strike down Florida’s Stop WOKE Act’s prohibition against certain workplace Inclusion, Equity and Diversion trainings and teachings - as a violation of free speech. — Questioner
Objective truth isn't relative.Such as in the case of Florida’s Stop WOKE Act – which is based on this premise: This is our truth, and it is the truth that matters, and your truth doesn’t matter, so shut up. — Questioner
the following concepts constitutes an unlawful employment practice or unlawful discrimination:
- Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.
- A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
- A person's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.
- Members of one race, color, national origin, or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, national origin, or sex.
- A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
- A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
- A person, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin, or sex.
- Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, national origin, or sex to oppress members of another race, color, national origin, or sex.
The first victim of a revenge killing after the September 11, 2001, attacks was not a Muslim but a Sikh. Balbir Singh Sodhi was gunned down at the gas station he managed in Mesa, Arizona, by a man who wanted to kill "towel heads".
I hope the operation goes as humanely as possible. Nor am I under any delusions when it comes to what Israel/Jews are capable of. The Irgun were terrifying. Jews are just as capable of terror as anyone else.
Here's the thing though- Just as the Russians could kill and rape their way to Berlin and remain the "good guys", so the IDF can engage in questionable practices (clearly far more civil than the Russians) and still remain the "good guys." It's one of those funny things about war. We could imagine e.g. a Red Army battalion where every one of its soldiers had engaged in war crimes and deserves a hanging at Nuremberg, yet as long as they are pushing towards Berlin and wearing that uniform they are "good." — BitconnectCarlos
Likely the time that the UK came to the nearest to peace terms with Germany would have meant that Churchill wouldn't have become prime minister. By the way, Edouard Daladier and Paul Reynard, the politicians that lead France against Germany were prisoned, but not hanged. Both survived German prison camps and could later oppose later de Gaulle in French politics. Hence it's not so certain that this would have happened. Yet Soviet Union did put Finnish leadership on trial, but even they were not hanged.If the Axis had won, Churchill and Roosevelt would have been hanged for war crimes, so what the Axis would have done to Allied leaders is neither here nor there. — RogueAI
Or hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings. Yes, 19 terrorists whom none were from Afghanistan lead the US to have it's longest war that it in the end humiliatingly lost. This is result of when war isn't politics by other means or with a goal, but an emotional response needed to serve the craving for revenge by the masses. And this emotional response is abused so well at the present. Even Putin had his obscure Moscow neighborhood bombings to ramp up support for restarting a war.If your opponent is gleefully committing war crimes, like raping women to death, they're going to reap the whirlwind. — RogueAI
More than a quarter of the Chechen population was killed, including 40,000 children who were maimed or injured. Every single family, aside from the collaborators, was devastated. Torture and repressions continue to this day. Under the leadership of Ramzan Kadyrov, Putin’s sycophant and head of the Russian occupying regime, torture, and repression continue to this day.
This is the problem? Trump is just hot air of populism, basically anti-elitism, that the present elites are evil and screwing the ordinary people and he will solve everything. That's the Trump line. Anything else is just opportunistic tweets that Trump thinks his base will like. Otherwise it's simply the same old GOP agenda now fitted in the new "Project 2025" mold from the Heritage Foundation, which likely is the real "theory of economic change". A continuation of the agenda the Heritage Foundation has pushed for decades just now put into the Trumpist mold of talking about the deep state. Above all, the Heritage Foundation is for big business. Of course they are against a corporations that have given money to the democrats, but otherwise it still is for big business, the guys who support them.This is the problem with Trump's theory of economic change which is that it completely ignores the role of big business in getting us where we are. It's not just the dirty immigrants who make stuff cheaper. — Mr Bee
I agree. Yet trade wars and less trade won't make us more prosperous. Or just you. If you think that less goods with higher prices makes your life better, then let's follow the trade policies of the 1930's. And those undocumented workers? Well, would you like to go and pick berries in California for a living? And on what salary? But you can close the border. We closed our border to Russia. Places that my family could shop for quality stuff at the border went bankrupt and the little municipality is really struggling because the border is closed, but that was a price I guess we had to pay (and I'm Ok with that, because Putin is a murderous thug).It's still true that free trade and undocumented labor are two ways American labor is undermined. — frank
Up to a point, when they don't anymore.Yet if a place is about to be bombed people will typically leave. Israel will typically inform the population. — BitconnectCarlos
So what is your view then about Israel simply declaring every living person being a terrorist or their supporters and a valid target after a certain time? There is still 400 000 people in Northern Gaza.Population transfer occurs naturally in wartime as people flee to safety. If Israel were to e.g. forcibly load them onto trucks or trains and send them somewhere that would be a war crime. But yes, Israel will assist in evacuation efforts if an area is about to be subject to bombardment -- that's humanitarian. — BitconnectCarlos
(23rd Oct.2023) The Israeli army declared Saturday that anyone choosing to stay in the northern Gaza Strip and not go to the south under a previous evacuation order will be considered a partner of "terrorists.” The Israeli aircraft dropped "urgent warning" flyers into the besieged enclave, urging Palestinians in northern Gaza to move south.
"To the residents of the Gaza Strip," the Israeli army wrote. "Being in the north of the Gaza Valley puts your lives in danger," it said, adding that "anyone who does not go to the south of the Gaza Valley and chooses not to stay in the northern area" will be considered "as an associate of the terrorist organization."
Israeli army spokesperson Avichay Adraee confirmed that the statements written on the flyers belonged to the Israeli army. Earlier on Saturday, the Israeli military ordered the immediate evacuation of the Al-Quds Hospital, "in preparation for bombing."
Twenty hospitals in northern Gaza were also ordered to evacuate on Saturday.
Formal recognition has been done:Do Arabs accept Israel? As a state? (Which / how many do/don't, and how reliable is this?) — jorndoe
The 1967 Arab League summit was held on August 29 in Khartoum as the fourth Arab League Summit in the aftermath of the Arab defeat by Israel in the Six-Day War, and is famous for its Khartoum Resolution known as "The Three No's"; No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.
Understand your thinking here, but no. It's not going to go like that.Undocumented labor is one of the ways the government undermines the power of labor in the US. Tariffs plus deportation would lay the groundwork for an economic revolution. — frank
Neither is population displacement a war crime but is rather a natural result of warfare itself. — BitconnectCarlos
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits the transfer of the population of an occupying power into the territory it occupies.
Then it's realpolitik. Learn the definitions of the terms you use.
Realpolitik: — BitconnectCarlos
A system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
A former Israeli defense minister has accused his country of committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip, in a rare criticism from Israel’s own security community about military operations in the Palestinian enclave.
Moshe Yaalon said the Israeli government was putting the lives of Israel Defense Forces soldiers in danger and exposing them to lawsuits at the International Criminal Court, in an interview with the Reshet Bet radio station Sunday.
“I speak on behalf of commanders who serve in northern Gaza,” he said. “War crimes are being committed here.”
In a separate interview with Democrat TV on Saturday, he said that the Israeli government was seeking “to conquer, to annex, to carry out ethnic cleansing.”
Hard-liners want to re-establish Jewish settlements in Gaza, he said, including in northern areas where civilians have been urged to leave indefinitely as the Israeli military prepares to move against Hamas fighters who have regrouped.
“What is going on there? There is no Beit Lahiya, no Beit Hanoun, they are operating now in Jabalia and basically cleaning the area of Arabs,” Yaalon said.
So you consider the Gaza war to be more an ideological and moral fight than a practical undertaking, like taking out a threat. :chin:I don't consider the Gaza war to be Israel engaging in realpolitik. — BitconnectCarlos
On several occasions, Erdoğan called for a meeting with Assad to discuss normalizing ties, which Ankara severed after the 2011 Syrian war. But, Assad has said such talks could only happen if the neighbors focus on core issues, including the withdrawal of Turkish forces from the north of Syria.
Actually, he has stated himself that he only looks at the issue from his own theoretical perspective, which doesn't take into account Russian domestic politics. Hence such things that Russia has annexed Ukrainian territory and Putin has repeatedly made it clear what an integral part Ukraine itself is of Russia is not relevant for Mearsheimer. Which makes it so biased.2. It is very much possible that Mearsheimer is picking only the Russian arguments that better support its claims ignoring, omitting, downplaying others which do not add up with his general views, in other words its theory may bias his views . — neomac
Political power, be it democratic or autocratic, is dependent on domestic political support, be that needed support of the voters or the security apparatus. Foreign policy is to serve those goals, just like defense policy or energy police etc.This is a wildly inaccurate statement. — boethius
So does every policy in the US that enjoys the support of both political parties. For example, just where the US spends it's government income has been extremely stable without not much differences between administrations: wealth transfers (welfare and pensions), health care, defense and education (and then the interest on debt). In fact, there isn't anything for politicians to decide as the usually these spending has been announced to be mandatory. What has approval of both parties, doesn't create much debate, as foreign policy does, especially when it's usually the last refuge that US Presidents then try to mingle after their domestic campaign promises have withered away.for example that US foreign policy remains extremely consistent throughout wildly different administrations. — boethius
Just look at the Charter of NATO itself: every country has to be ratified by each member state. For example Hungary has said that it doesn't want Ukraine in NATO. And prior the invasion, member states like Germany opposed this. This is why NATO has often irritates American Presidents as the organization won't go the way as they plan. The really ignorant and naive idea is that the US can push anything through NATO. It cannot. It couldn't do that either in CENTO and SEATO, as these are organizations made up of member states.This is such a strange line of argument to assert that what people explicitly say, such as "Ukraine will join NATO" — boethius
This was a war started by the Russian Intelligence services with and controlled by the Kremlin. Even the annexation of Crimea, which The real goal for Russia is to get Ukraine back into Russia as it sees the country as a natural part of Russia, Novorossiya. And with Ukraine it has the what it considers much needed resources. The main objectives are pure imperialism, because Russia is an empire.and there is a bunch of proximate causes, such as there already being a war in the Donbas regularly killing ethnic Russians that ethnic Russians in Russia want and expect something to be done about it. — boethius
Just ask yourself, what if Russia wouldn't have annexed Crimea, which doesn't bring enormous riches to Russia, but more problematic backward economy. If it hadn't done this, the European countries would have continued to dismantle their defenses, Russia would enjoy large support in Ukraine (and hence have a say) and Ukrainian NATO membership would be one silly thing that some US presidents would have said. Ukraine would seem quite dubious candidate with it's frequent revolutions etc.But isn't the whole argument that the war is irrational for Russia premised on Russia being weak and the war therefore too damaging? — boethius
Russia has nuclear deterrence. Without that nuclear deterrence, it's likely that NATO would have created a "no fly zone" over Ukraine and been one actor in the war, just like it was for example in the Libyan Civil War.in defending the idea that NATO in Ukraine is not a threat to Russia your methodology is that nothing anyone explicitly says matter, but then when it comes to Russia threatening Europe you beseech us to take every little word as seriously as possible and also "know what they mean" even if they didn't say anything. — boethius
I'm really confused what you are aiming here for. First, NATO is a security arrangement for Europe and an obvious issue is actually Article 1, that it keeps member states in not having conflicts themselves. NATO membership has at least for now made Turkey and Greece to avoid a war. Then NATO was wholeheartedly seeking for a mission and thus concentrated on "new threats", but Russia's actions has made it to focus in it's original mission, which in the 1990's and 2000's was a relic of the past for many.But isn't the whole argument that the war is irrational for Russia premised on Russia being weak and the war therefore too damaging? How does that square with symultaniously presenting Russia as this unstoppable force that would roll over all of Eastern Europe, and maybe even Western Europe, if not for NATO and also stopping this unstoppable Russian army with the unmovable might of NATO in Ukraine? — boethius
That simply is a lie.For, you will not actually find any of this threatening language before NATO escalated with Russia in pushing into Ukraine ... — boethius
Well, I do.I don't think there's anything essentially wrong with Mearsheimer's analysis as it paints the one-sided viewpoint of Russia — Benkei
Yet it doesn't reflect accurately EVERYTHING. Yes, Putin says that he is in a war with NATO. So basically he is saying that Russia is also in war with your country, Benkei, and with my country. And I've been the first one here to remind even before the annexation of Crimea, the in the official military doctrine of Russia the first threat was NATO enlargement, when international terrorism (read Al Qaeda) was threat number 14 or so. Yet if you just repeat the Mearsheimer line, the logical system would be not to enlarge NATO or even get rid of NATO. But that wouldn't stop Russia! In fact that would simply make them be even more aggressive. If you think that's just a hypothetical, that also Russia could be totally passive and nice neighbor, that isn't the case when people like Putin run the country. You simply have to listen to what they really say, not just look at the US and the West and think that everything that other people do is just a response to your own actions. It isn't that way. That's the whole point here.It's accurate insofar it reflects Russian arguments and thinking and you can think about it what you want but it has been raised repeatedly as a reason. — Benkei
Hold on,The argument NATO is purely defensive is merely theoretical as Kosovo and Libya have shown but even the treaty changes with respect to, for instance, space warfare. — Benkei
Russia is an empire.Does Russia have a right to empire? No, but then no country does. Yet there were empires and there are empires; through military, economic or even cultural influence. Russia has the de facto power to project power in the near abroad as do other large powers (notably the US and China). — Benkei
Really? I beg to disagree. You are in the heart of Europe. You have the largest port in Europe, which also is the largest one outside Asia. Paris is just 280 km from your border. You are next to the Ruhr region of Germany. An ordinary artillery missile fired from the Netherlands can hit London (just like V2 rockets did in WW2 that were first launched to London from the Hague). You have a lot of strategic relevance!!! It just isn't contested, but you are one of those central countries to any Western alliance.After all, nobody gives a shit about the strategic relevance of the Netherlands for a reason! — Benkei
Why oppose having morality in international relations? Aren't there morals that we all should adhere to? Or is everything just realpolitik, shit just happens? Well, what Israel is doing in Gaza is realpolitik too, so why do you anything to complain about that? Or is it that we pick what is realpolitik and what is morally wrong just because of our own likings? I think that's close to the argument that @BitconnectCarlos hurls at others on a constant basis.Some of the responses to Harris' video reflect a moral view of international relations, which simply doesn't mean much in a world where international relations are preponderantly governed by real politk considerations. - The problem with the moral argument is also that it only works if you adhere to moral principles yourself; otherwise it's just another real politik tool "Do as I say (but don't do as I do)". — Benkei
Again I have to disagree with you.And while I agree Eastern European countries have the moral high ground; they are simply not the most relevant players between the proxy wars. — Benkei
So better leave these "no sound arguments" unchallenged in a Philosophy Forum? Not everyone is a troll and I think trolls do get banned rather quickly.It is very fruitful as it doesn't give space to zealots where their arguments are prima facie engaged as if they are rational, reasonable or acceptable when in fact they have no argument. — Benkei
I'm not so sure about this, I think here @flannel jesus is correct. Being critical about your own nation, it's democratic system isn't cultural relativism. It doesn't lead to cultural relativism or that cultural relativism would lead to self criticism. Self criticism can lead to anti-nationalism, if the society has believed in itself and it's values. Self criticism can lead to improving yourself, which is good, but it also can lead to self hatred and apathy.Cultural relativism is the view that objective goods are relative to social norms and values; and this line of thinking does usually cause anti-nationalist ideologies. — Bob Ross
Exactly.The rout wasn't particularly different in kind from that the ANA suffered without US support, and that was also in a context where a stalemate had held by agreement with lower levels of conflict for a long period. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Indeed. But for you 41 000 - 45 000 killed is a reason that it's not a genocide? Yes, it indeed isn't 100 000 or 400 000. Or at similar level that Bashar al-Assad's tyrannical regime killed. But just look up the definitions given, which can be read from the thread.But wait. The population of India and China is ~4x — BitconnectCarlos
Oh that would be the evidence? Again, look up the definition. The public speeches after the attack give ample evidence of this, which btw have already been discussed in this thread.Did Bibi specifically state he wished to destroy all Palestinians? I know of no such genocidal intent. — BitconnectCarlos
The Chamber found that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant concerned the activities of Israeli government bodies and the armed forces against the civilian population in Palestine, more specifically civilians in Gaza. It therefore concerned the relationship between two parties to an international armed conflict, as well as the relationship between an occupying power and the population in occupied territory. For these reasons, with regards to war crimes, the Chamber found it appropriate to issue the arrest warrants pursuant to the law of international armed conflict. The Chamber also found that the alleged crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.
The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024. This finding is based on the role of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant in impeding humanitarian aid in violation of international humanitarian law and their failure to facilitate relief by all means at its disposal. The Chamber found that their conduct led to the disruption of the ability of humanitarian organisations to provide food and other essential goods to the population in need in Gaza. The aforementioned restrictions together with cutting off electricity and reducing fuel supply also had a severe impact on the availability of water in Gaza and the ability of hospitals to provide medical care.
The Chamber also noted that decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza were often conditional. They were not made to fulfil Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law or to ensure that the civilian population in Gaza would be adequately supplied with goods in need. In fact, they were a response to the pressure of the international community or requests by the United States of America. In any event, the increases in humanitarian assistance were not sufficient to improve the population’s access to essential goods.
Furthermore, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that no clear military need or other justification under international humanitarian law could be identified for the restrictions placed on access for humanitarian relief operations. Despite warnings and appeals made by, inter alia, the UN Security Council, UN Secretary General, States, and governmental and civil society organisations about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, only minimal humanitarian assistance was authorised. In this regard, the Chamber considered the prolonged period of deprivation and Mr Netanyahu’s statement connecting the halt in the essential goods and humanitarian aid with the goals of war.
The Chamber therefore found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.
The Chamber found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and specific medical supplies, created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration. On the basis of material presented by the Prosecution covering the period until 20 May 2024, the Chamber could not determine that all elements of the crime against humanity of extermination were met. However, the Chamber did find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crime against humanity of murder was committed in relation to these victims.
In addition, by intentionally limiting or preventing medical supplies and medicine from getting into Gaza, in particular anaesthetics and anaesthesia machines, the two individuals are also responsible for inflicting great suffering by means of inhumane acts on persons in need of treatment. Doctors were forced to operate on wounded persons and carry out amputations, including on children, without anaesthetics, and/or were forced to use inadequate and unsafe means to sedate patients, causing these persons extreme pain and suffering. This amounts to the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts.
The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that the abovementioned conduct deprived a significant portion of the civilian population in Gaza of their fundamental rights, including the rights to life and health, and that the population was targeted based on political and/or national grounds. It therefore found that the crime against humanity of persecution was committed.
Finally, the Chamber assessed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza. In this regard, the Chamber found that the material provided by the Prosecution only allowed it to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks that were intentionally directed against civilians. Reasonable grounds to believe exist that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant, despite having measures available to them to prevent or repress the commission of crimes or ensure the submittal of the matter to the competent authorities, failed to do so.
Just like in the case of Sinai earlier, withdrawing settlers from newly established settlements isn't the same thing. And these people live in Israel, they weren't deported somewhere else and aren't refugees outside Israel.Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza in 2005 of all Israeli presence. — BitconnectCarlos
In the seven years between 1978 and 1985, 11,500 acres of land were confiscated by the Israeli government for the establishment of settlements. By 1991, the settler population in Gaza would reach 3,500 and 4,000 by 1993, or less than 1% of Gaza's population.
With the Republicans, the fear of Trump is actually a fear about the MAGA crowd and the voters in the next election. How will that go if inflation picks up and the economy goes south? This might alienate especially the part of the voters who voted for a better economy, but aren't in the MAGA cult.I think you're right. I'll add this about the majority of Republicans in Congress: they embraced Trump in order to enhance their own power (better a Republican President than a Democratic one). The question is: how far will they bend toward Trump's will, in order to effect the policies THEY hope for. — Relativist
The US-backed SDF controls a quarter of Syrian territory, including the resource-rich area east of the Euphrates, which holds 90% of Syria's oil and more than half of its natural gas fields, as well as infrastructure owned by foreign companies through contracts signed with Damascus.
The SDF's pumping and production of the oil is illegal and contrary to international sanctions but nevertheless continues, with ordinary Syrians yet to benefit.
Because of the sanctions, this oil cannot be sold on international markets so is sold on the black market at a fraction of its real value, reported to be around $15 per barrel.
On 15 August 2023, officials from the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (the political wing of the SDF) claimed they controlled less than half the wells and fields in its areas of influence.
Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
1) A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
2) A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
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
Sigh.ssu What's the likelihood the buffer zone they just took in Syria won't be all that temporary? — Benkei
No. This is quite historical. When there is nobody willing to fight for something, then the whole thing simply comes down. Armies can simply unravel and the soldiers just walk away. It has happened many times in history.I'm not saying that they may have stopped this eventual outcome, but rather I'm questioning why it crumbled like a crouton, which is ahistorical - armies don't just evaporate under normal wartime circumstances. — Tzeentch
Do we really celebrate violence?we must ask ourselves: What do we gain by celebrating violence? What message do we keep in our minds and in those of our descendants? — Alonsoaceves
Many times it is said to be the contrary. We can make the same mistakes of the past when we have forgotten that we made them earlier.However, the continued reminder of violent dates and events only makes it more likely that violent events will occur in the future. — Alonsoaceves
The sad truth is that new celebrations are at the present are advanced by commercial interests and by consumption. A day that you have to BUY something, hopefully for others as a gift. Or then a day that you can have a party! Again something that has a commercial interest in it. I've noticed that this has happened especially with American holidays being pushed into the European scene. There's little of the collective celebration, other than celebrating with your family and friends. Or then a formal celebration of something is just a holiday that you don't have to go to work or to school. Which is fine, but do people really celebrate the celebration on those particular days? Usually not.Some suggestions for days to celebrate with harmonious intention are: Humanity Day, Inclusive Society Day, Scientific Discoveries Day, Technological Advances Day, World Peace Day, Hunger Eradication Day, and Equal Opportunities Day.
What else do you suggest? — Alonsoaceves