Obligatory xckd what if

Thank you for explaining your rationale.

I think you are dangerously wrong. How do you suggest to prevent violence? some of the issues you are facing are historically Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem launching terror attacks against settlers living there who purchased the land their grandparents were forced from (the actual situation is even more complicated than this one sentence explanation). Now imagine needing to solve that, but on a very large scale.

If you suddenly grant Palestinians full rights and movement, there is nothing preventing them from launching a genocidal campaign against Jewish Israelis. Hamas, PIJ, and other Palestinian groups have declared they will not stop until all Jews within Israel are dead.

Your rationale for wanting a one state solution is idealistic, but ultimately naive. It fails to capture the complexity of the conflict and serves to further violent interests while screaming their slogan.

So for the people who think like you do, it’s an explicit rejection of a two state solution, and publicly declaring that the only path to peace is one state shared by everyone.

I’d like to understand why you think a one state solution is the most viable path to peace?

No reasonable person would hear “destroy Mexico” and think “oh, he must really dislike the government and state of Mexico”. They will automatically assume that you mean to bring about the destruction of Mexico *\including the people who live there*.

if you truly intended to advocate merely for the immediate dissolution of the state, you would have said so.

Yes.

“From the river to the sea” on the other hand is a call for the destruction of one or the other. Neither is ok.

So by your logic calling for the destruction of Gaza or Palestine should be allowed as non-hate speech as well. Because it’s only referring to “the dissolution of a state apparatus”.

Based on your comments elsewhere, you’d automatically color those as the calls to violence they quite clearly are, yet you’re willing to go to great length to argue that somehow calling for the destruction of Israel isn’t.

Countries are not just lines on a map. They are people. Calling for their destruction is calling for the death of those people and their culture.

You cannot decide after saying it that calling for the “destruction” of a country means merely changing the borders or system of government. The word implies violence.

calling for the destruction of a country is never ok, and is always a problem

The actual SEC report is relatively short - and surprisingly accessible.

This is a syndicated article from mondoweiss.

A process that has been criticized by many specifically because it ignores and undermines Israeli efforts to prosecute war crimes committed by its own. It violates the principle of complementarity, so there’s a decent chance the request for warrants will be dismissed without prejudice on those grounds alone.

I personally believe the request was made to appease the Muslim world as the others in that request are Deif, Haniyeh, and Sinwar. Those warrants will likely be granted, given that the State of Palestine (signatory to the Rome Statutes and the reason for jurisdiction) clearly lacks the ability or willingness to hold them or their organization responsible for their actions.

If you don’t care what the US does - why argue that they should impose sanctions on Netanyahu? Shouldn’t you be arguing that Germany impose sanctions on Israel (feddit.org being based in Germany and aimed at a German userbase)?

Well written op-ed - but it fails some fact checks. The protests at Sde Teiman were dispersed after they realized the soldiers who had been arrested were no longer at the base. Similarly, the protest at Beit Leid started after it was announced the soldiers had been transferred there.

Opinion articles aren’t held to journalistic standards, and it shows.

The US followed up on those two incidents - quite publicly. Simply hand waving that it happens and blaming the media is not very convincing. ]=]

…virtually no Hamas in West Bank…

5 fewer as of a few hours ago. Hopefully the last ones in the entire West Bank, but somehow I doubt it. This statement is only exposing that you don’t have very deep knowledge of the current state of affairs in the West Bank. Not surprising given the amount of propaganda and less than factual coverage of the conflict.

Likud consisted of terror organizations before becoming a political party

So were the ANC, the PLO, and many others around the world. Hell, the Republican party used to be staunchly against racism and slavery. Organizations change over time. But that change happens slowly, and to remove the stench of terrorism takes demonstrable steps away from violence.

The rules are applied evenly - Israel isn’t designated a terrorist state because there is no such definition. It simply doesn’t make sense - terrorism was invented to describe war crimes committed by non-state actors, and had no established process to be held responsible for their crimes. Israel may not heavily punish those who commit war crimes, but they do prosecute them, and that’s the bar that’s needed to avoid sanctions. Like it or don’t like it, but that’s the way the world works right now.

Searching news archives doesn’t pull up any results for Palestinian American citizens killed in Gaza. I probably missed something if you’re so confident, so please send some sources if you have them on hand.

Designations of terrorism were more or less invented to deal with non-state actors. Which is why the definitions largely overlap with war crimes. If you’ll recall, the ICC are discussing whether or not to issue warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu, Gallant, Sinwar, Deif, and Haniyeh.

The only bias in my scientific papers is in the data! But we compensate for it and if you approve our next grant we totally promise we’ll be able to reduce that bias. So give us more funding pretty please!

I’m extremely unfamiliar with Turkish law. Is there an anti-censorship law like this? I would imagine it requires various carveouts for liability in case of actual law-breaking content, libel, etc.

My assumption that this was simple corruption where a private company compelled the government to take actions for their immediate benefit.

Subjective, but not arbitrary. Here’s the relevant sections of EO13224 (linked above):

…may designate foreign individuals or entities that he determines have committed, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the U.S.;

…

For the purpose of the Order, “terrorism” is defined to be an activity that (1) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (2) appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

There are 8 US citizens still held hostage by Hamas in Gaza - which means they meet the criteria of both 1 and 2. That’s without opening up any other accusations of terrorism.

Haniyeh earned his Specially Designated Global Terrorist title on January 31, 2018. A company caught hosting terrorism-promoting content can face company-ending consequences. Executives have been sent to prison for turning a blind eye to doing business with sanctioned countries. Instagram was probably complying with these regulations.

Punishing Instagram for complying with the law puts Turkey into a precarious position. It’s an open secret that they offer cheap rubber, steel, and other raw materials because they’re willing to lie on forms and act as a conduit for Russia and Iran to bypass sanctions. Too much attention on sanctions programs and Turkey in the same sentence can potentially end that part of their economy, which they can’t really afford right now.

The correct term is “Computational Statistics”