She told the nonvoters to screw off at the DNC rally so I think it’s safe to assume she won’t be changing her stance any time soon.
Citation needed?
She’ll still probably win
Remember Al Gore and the kid from Cuba who made it to Florida? Sometimes one issue is enough to make or break it.
Kamala and the party holding him accountable for this shit and pushing for him to get out now if he’s really demented enough to still believe Israel, would really help nonvoters see the difference.
It’s a tough balancing act since being too hard on Israel could lose an otherwise reliable voting block (American Jews). On the flip side, Palestine origin US citizens, Turkish origin US citizens, and others are likely to be lost if this issue isn’t pressed hard enough
Show people who aren’t planning on voting that at least one option holds themselves accountable.
From the WP article itself, a small beacon …
“The U.S. government has had full access to Israel’s preliminary investigation, and expects continued access as the investigation continues, so that we can have confidence in the result,” Biden said Wednesday.
The most optimistic interpretation is that, behind the scenes they’re pushing Israel hard about this, even if they’re trying to play it cool in public.
Already Facebook owner Meta (META.O), has said it may block professional news content if it is forced to pay royalties
Well, they did exactly that in Canada because of C-18 (what’s C-18 about? see https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/understanding-bill-c-18-canada-s-online-news-act-and-its-proposed-rules-explained-1.6488532 )
It didn’t seem to affect much. If anything, it ended up as a boon - since we know legitimate news can’t be shared on FB now, any “news” that comes through must be fake.
About time.
They did…
In 1947 the UN voted to partition the region into separate Jewish and Arab states.
The UN includes Russia, China, lots of African countries, …
We could say that the UN helped to create Israel and call it a day. We could even say it was Western-led, with the UK having the Mandate and all prior to the UN taking it up. But to say that the West made it implies that the other countries who were members of the UN at the time had no involvement or responsibility here, which isn’t accurate.
Everyone that moved there prior to the creation of Israel was moving to Palestine…
Well, to the British Mandate of Palestine. Semantics, agreed.
That’s not true. No one was moving to “Palestine”. It was a somewhat dead area.
Perhaps it was but there was some movement. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Aliyah - but I think you alluded to this earlier when you mentioned what Russia and such did back in 1882.
As well there was never a country called Palestine. You don’t see it on any maps.
From what I can tell, this is correct. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine#Ottoman_period
the Palestine region within it was divided into the five sanjaks (provincial districts, also called liwa′ in Arabic) of Safad, Nablus, Jerusalem, Lajjun and Gaza.
In common usage from 1840 onward, “Palestine” was used either to describe … a region that extended in the north–south direction typically from Rafah (south-east of Gaza) to the Litani River (now in Lebanon). The western boundary was the sea, and the eastern boundary was the poorly defined place where the Syrian desert began.
Countries - or even provinces - usually have well defined borders, so up to Ottoman control it wasn’t a single entity but a poorly defined grouping.
I guess one could make the case for it after the British Mandate of Palestine, but of course it still wasn’t an independent country when the British were running things.
From all the development in Israel brought a lot of Arab immigrants to Palestine area as well.
I don’t know too much about this but it sounds plausible.
There could have been a Palestine but they declined that partition plan and chose to lose a war. They continue to lose wars.
Well, Oct 7 really was a major setback. I would admit that Netanyahu seems like the last person to allow for Palestine or a two state solution, like, ever. But he was about to be handed a major setback in gov’t control back in Sept and Oct 2023 which one could kinda see as maybe paving the way for a new gov’t to take control, one more likely to offer a new olive branch to the Palestinians - until Oct 7 happened and everyone agreed to coalition and stand behind Netanyahu.
My optimistic rose tinted guess here is that it’s very tough to speak out after what happened last Oct. Hamas was wrong and went too far in that, unjustifiably so.
It’s a bit ironic, from what I understood at the time Netanyahu was forced into a coalition and losing power. Then the Oct attack happened and suddenly a bunch of folks stepped out of Netanyahu’s way and gave him full control again.
Today there are many Israelites - including family members of hostages - who think things are going too far and that Netanyahu should stop.
Not doubting you, but as I don’t recall this (probably because of the exhausting news cycle) citations would help.
Anyways, I’m encouraged by the fact that other countries that are similarly allied like the UK are starting to say no. The US might not have been ready to be the first one or the only one from this group, but hopefully it will do the right thing when others like the UK set the right example…
And on top of that, you think that’s ethical?
I’d say that the ethical part comes in more on the side of “hey at least they got a govt of their own now, and are running their own country instead of being forced into part of someone else’s” as we see (for example) in the upper two countries of North America.
You think it’s reasonable to expect a population of people who have been oppressed, displaced, and murdered by foreign colonizers for decades to happily be neighbors with them all of a sudden?
No. I’d consider giving these folks land and territory that they can form into their own country as a required first step in a very long process.
I’m curious though - if not a two state solution, then what is your preferred or recommended solution to resolve things here?
Quite simply, the hope is that it ends up being more ethnical for the Palestinians living in the West Bank - who currently are subject to Israel control - to be fully in control of their own territory.
with don’t have many other options besides Russia or China
*cough cough* North Korea *cough cough*
Has no one explained to you that one of the big factors the West had in creating Israel was to create a volatile area for proxy wars instead of another war in Europe?
Citation needed.
It seems to somewhat contract the info in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Aliyah - namely that Jewish immigration to what was then Ottoman Palestine started half a century before WWII, and that it was based on a desire for these folks to return to their ancient religious homelands…
Anyways, if that was indeed the desire, it can’t really have been said to be a smashing success, considering the long list presented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#21st_century (and also look above to say the 1950s - it’s quite a long list of conflicts in Europe post WWII)
I’m a bit confused where the line actually is - it seems to be a very low bar - but at least some red lines for the US do seem to exist.
E.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/15/biden-israel-occupy-gaza-big-mistake/ (don’t retake Gaza)
The flip side is that the US being allied with Israel can sometimes be asset - able to push for justice by asking Israel to investigate it’s own forces in https://www.npr.org/2024/09/09/nx-s1-5106819/us-israel-american-woman-shooting-west-bank (though admittedly the “expression of deep regret” as per https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/10/israel-says-highly-likely-its-troops-killed-turkish-american-aysenur-ezgi-eygi sounds a lot like “thoughts and prayers”)
A slightly more successful version, https://theintercept.com/2024/08/09/israel-prison-sde-teiman-palestinian-abuse-torture/ , where the US asked Israel to investigate, resulting in some arrests…
That said, I do hope that the US soon follows suit with the UK on this, https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/10/australian-government-backs-uk-decision-to-curb-arms-sales-to-israel
Mostly agree. At least, the threshold to get Iran to not do this is much, much higher - remember that Iran is trying to get a nuclear program among other things that the US and many other allied countries take an issue with, and it’s likely those would have to get put on the table as well if one were to hypothetically attempt to negotiate with Iran over the subject in the article…
refused entry to Hong Kong. He had come from mainland China.
Not really disagreeing with you, but - it’s just that (in the past at least) you’d expect mainland China to be a tad stricter and less flexible about this compared to HK, but it seems like this time it was the other way around. So slightly surprising. But only slightly.
Perhaps not totally borderless, but how about something like AU-NZ? Where EU/EFTA/etc citizens can (after going thru a brief and perfunctory check) still travel freely? And the same for spouses of EU citizens/permanent residents of EU countries with the right paperwork/documentation?
Alas it sounds like the company is even dumber than that. From their quote,
But in a statement emailed to The Associated Press, Clearview’s chief legal officer, Jack Mulcaire, said that the decision is “unlawful, devoid of due process and is unenforceable.”
I am guessing the reason they didn’t appeal is because they refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts altogether.
However, this is wrong, and I’m pretty sure it will come back to bite them. Under the GDPR,
EU data protection authorities may fine companies that continue to do business with US organizations that violate GDPR
and also
EU and US companies may pursue US companies for breach of contract, if GDPR compliance is written into the underlying agreement. These contractual claims may be adjudicated in US courts, depending on the contract, even if they relate to EU compliance.
So in short US companies that do business in the EU and also do business with Clearview may get sued and have to pay up on Clearview’s behalf. Expect Clearview to run out customers shortly after the first set of suits get litigated successfully against Clearview’s customers…
(Edit: source from https://www.metaverselaw.com/how-will-gdpr-be-enforced-in-the-us/ )
Because the Fritzbox uses a DS-Lite tunnel.
Thanks, that pointed me in the right direction!
If I’m understanding https://en.avm.de/service/knowledge-base/dok/FRITZ-Box-3490/1611_What-is-DS-Lite-and-how-does-it-work/ and https://superuser.com/questions/1301857/using-pcp-port-control-protocol-in-practice correctly it seems that it’s technically via PCP (Port Control Protocol) that this is known, rather than DS Lite per se, but also that PCP only comes into play here because DS Lite is being used.
(Why point out the distinction? For future readers. I can imagine some braindead ISP somewhere (likely a super cheap reseller) offering DS Lite but then not knowing about PCP, and either not offering port forwarding at all - or they do but you have to fill out a form and snail mail them and then they snail mail you back a printed letter containing a list of port mappings.)
So, here’s a page from the online manual that specifies how to do this specifically for the FritzBox 7530
Based on the original post though I am 100% sure that OP has already seen this page, already tried it, and therefore knows that the warning under 2.10.b. applies to the OP’s case (i.e. FritzBox doesn’t allow it from UI because the ISP doesn’t allow it - that honestly had me wondering just how the FritzBox knows the ISP doesn’t allow it, but that’s a different topic).
And one can prototype this for free by using something like localhost.run or ngrok.com
Didn’t the UK already reduce arms sales?
Maybe it’s time to reduce even more and for other countries to follow suit.