#Chief Minister of different states | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

zvaigzdelasas · 1 year

Text

[AlJazeera is Qatari State Media]

[5:18 GMT - 7:52 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

[5:18 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

The leader of Hamas’s military wing says the group has launched a new operation against Israel. In a rare public statement, Mohammed Deif said that 5,000 rockets had been fired into Israel early Saturday to begin “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm”. Israel also reported an infiltration from Gaza. “We’ve decided to say enough is enough,” Deif said as he urged all Palestinians to confront Israel.[...]

[5:26 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

Here are some more lines by the statement of Mohammed Deif, head of the al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas: “We have already warned the enemy before. The occupation committed hundreds of massacres against civilians. Hundreds of martyrs and wounded died this year due to the crimes of the occupation. “We announce the start of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, and we announce that the first strike, which targeted enemy positions, airports, and miltary fortifications, exceeded 5,000 missiles and shells.”[...]

[5:45 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

More than 5,000 rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel in the first 20 minutes of the operation, Hamas’s armed wing has said. “We decided to put an end to all the crimes of the occupation (Israel), their time for rampaging without being held accountable is over,” the group said. Israel said it had activated its Iron Dome defence system.[...]]

[5:49 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

The Israeli army says it has declared a “state of readiness for war”.[...]

[5:50 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

Saleh al-Arouri, deputy chief of Hamas in the occupied West Bank, has issued a call to arms.[...] “The West Bank is the final word in this battle, and it can open a clash with all the settlements in the West Bank. We call on our people to participate in the battle of Al-Aqsa Flood.”[...]

[5:53 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

The Israeli army says it has started an operation aimed at Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip. “There are many pictures circulating on social media especially Palestinian Telegram channels showing Israeli soldiers in Gaza, but as captives,” Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said.[...]

[6:05 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

Videos circulating on social media have shown Palestinian fighters driving Israeli army vehicles into Gaza.

[6:06 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

“On the streets, we’ve also seen the military vehicles in Gaza with Palestinian youth in the vehicles roaming about the streets happily,” she said. “The Israeli response to all this is going to be different from other times because nothing that has come out of Gaza before has been this strong. This is a first in the history of Gaza, for soldiers to go into Israeli towns, hold armed confrontations,” she added.[...]

[6:09 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

Rockets are still being launched from Gaza towards Israel. The sound of Israel’s Iron Dome defence system being activated in response can be heard.[...]

[6:12 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

Hamas fighters have taken control of the police station in Israel’s Sderot and a number of people have been injured in a fire exchange, the Israel Broadcasting Authority has reported.[...]

[6:14 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

Organisers of protests against the Israeli government’s judicial overhaul plan have cancelled their weekly demonstration scheduled for Saturday night.

“We stand with the residents of Israel and give full support to [the security forces],” the protest organisers said in a statement quoted by the Israeli media. They also called on the people who were planning to participate in the protest “to play their part to safeguard the security and health of the residents of Israel”.[…]

[6:18 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad group has said it is “part of this battle”. “Our cadres stand alongside their brothers in Hamas, shoulder to shoulder, until victory,” a spokesperson said.[…]

[6:20 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

Israeli Defence Minister Joav Gallant has approved the mobilisation of reservists, according to his office.[…]

[6:35 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

Reporting from Beirut, Lebanon, Al Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr says that Hamas’s call for others to join their operation against Israel could be interpreted as a reminder to Tel Aviv that if attacks against Gaza continue, there will be a response from other fronts.[...] “So far there has been no response from the armed groups in Lebanon. But what have we seen in the past? There has been coordination every time there is a flare-up, or heightened tension in Palestinian territories,” she added.[...]

[6:43 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

Stephanie Hallett, the charge d’affaires at the US embassy in Jerusalem, has slammed the rocket attacks from Gaza against Israel. “I condemn the indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas terrorists against Israeli civilians,” she said in a statement on social media platform X. “I am in contact with Israeli officials, and fully support Israel’s right to defend itself from such terrorist acts,” she added.[...]

[7:13 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

Reporting from the Gaza Strip, Al Jazeera’s Youmna ElSayed says that rockets are still being fired “very intensely” from the area. “We’ve seen pictures and videos of Israeli soldiers being killed and videos of Palestinian fighters celebrating around Israeli armed vehicles set on fire,” she said. “We also received a video showing two Israeli soldiers being captured. The video shows that the soldiers are alive and confrontations are still taking place inside those Israeli towns,” she added.[...]

[7:11 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

Hundreds of residents in the Gaza Strip have fled their homes to move away from the border with Israel, an AFP correspondent has reported. Men, women and children were seen carrying blankets and food items as they left their homes, mostly in the northeastern part of the Palestinian territory, the reporter said.

[7:29 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

Akiva Eldar, a columnist at the Israeli daily Haaretz, says the attack by Hamas should be a wake-up call for Israel. “You can’t go about normalising relations with Arab countries while also trying to expand into Palestinian territories,” he told Al Jazeera. “The image of status quo that you [Israel] can keep Gaza under blockade, you can keep expanding the settlements, and the Palestinian will sit back and say we approve your normalisation with the Gulf countries as long as workers from Gaza can make some money, isn’t going to work,” he added.[...]

[7:29 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

We now have the statement by Ismail Haniya, the head of Hamas’ political bureau[...]

“The enemy besieging Gaza has planned to surprise it and escalate the aggression against our people in the Gaza Strip, in addition to the settlement and aggression that continues every moment in the West Bank, which seeks to uproot our people and expel them from their land, and the crimes of the occupation against our people in the 1948s, as it stands behind all the killing and assassination operations there, and the occupation’s continuation of detaining our prisoners for decades, and reneging on agreements when he re-arrested those liberated from the swap deal. “For all of this, we are waging a battle of honour, resistance and dignity to defend Al-Aqsa, under the title that was announced by Brother Commander-in-Chief Abu Khaled Al-Deif, “Al-Aqsa Flood”. This flood began in Gaza and will extend to the West Bank and abroad, and every place where our people and nation are present.”[...]

[7:47 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

Israeli ambassador to the US calls “the free world to unequivocally condemn” the attacks by Hamas and support Israel’s “right to self-defence”.[...]

[7:50 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

President of the European Council Charles Michel says “EU stands in solidarity with Israeli people”. “Strongly condemn the indiscriminate attacks launched against #Israel and its people this morning inflicting terror and violence against innocent citizens,” he wrote on Twitter.[...]

[7:52 GMT, 7 Oct 23]

Israeli army launches ‘Operation Iron Swords’ against the Hamas group in the Gaza Strip, in response to attacks from the territory. Israeli raids have started, as witnesses tell Reuters news agency that explosions are heard in the Gaza city.

1K notes · View notes

txttletale · 10 months

Note

how do ml's reconcile with lenin going for a bigbrainhaver hierarchy which just so happened to place him at the tippy top? most of the things he's quoted for writing make a kind of sense in that longwinded academic philosopher way, but, like, russia went from having a revolution against monarchy to having a monarchy, essentially, and what folks do tends to align with their desires, yeah? wouldn't that make everything he said, idk, suspicious?

we reconcile with this because none of this is even remotely true. lenin did not 'happen to be placed at the tippy top' but was in fact elected by the soviets, who worked in a very simple electoral system by which workers and peasants would elect representatives to their local soviet, who as well as administering local services would also elect members to higher bodies. the quote unquote bigbrainhaver hierarchy system in question was as follows:

The sovereign body is in every case the Congress of Soviets. Each county sends its delegates. These are elected indirectly by the town and county Soviets which vote in proportion to population, following the ratio observed throughout, by which the voters in the town have five times the voting strength of the inhabitants of the villages, an advantage which may, as we saw, be in reality three to one. The Congress meets, as a rule, once a year, for about ten days. It is not, in the real sense of the word, the legislative body. It debates policy broadly, and passes resolutions which lay down the general principles to be followed in legislation. The atmosphere of its sittings is that of a great public demonstration. The Union Congress, for example, which has some fifteen hundred members, meets in the Moscow Opera House. The stage is occupied by the leaders and the heads of the administration, and speeches are apt to be big oratorical efforts. The real legislative body is the so-called Central Executive Committee (known as the C. I. K. and pronounced "tseek") . It meets more frequently than the Congress to which it is responsible-in the case of the Union, at least three times in the year-passes the Budget, receives the reports of the Commissars (ministers), and discusses international policy. It, in its turn, elects two standing bodies: (1) The Presidium of twenty-one members, which has the right to legislate in the intervals between the sittings of the superior assemblies, and also transacts some administrative work. (2) The Council of Peoples' Commissars. These correspond roughly to the Ministers or Secretaries of State in democratic countries and are the chiefs of the administration. Meeting as a Council, they have larger powers than any Cabinet, for they may pass emergency legislation and issue decrees which have all the force of legislation. Save in cases of urgency, however, their decrees and drafts of legislation must be ratified by the Executive Committee (C.I.K.). In another respect they differ from the European conception of a Minister. Each Commissar is in reality the chairman of a small board of colleagues, who are his advisers. These advisory boards, or collegia, meet very frequently (it may even be daily) to discuss current business, and any member of a board has the right to appeal to the whole Council of Commissars against a decision of the Commissar.

—H.N. Brailsford, How The Soviets Work (1927)

you might notice that the congresses of soviets were not directly elected -- this is because they were elected by local soviets, who were directly elected, in a process that many people have given first hand accounts of:

I have, while working in the Soviet Union, participated in an election. I, too, had a right to vote, as I was a working member of the community, and nationality and citizenship are no bar to electoral rights. The procedure was extremely simple. A general meeting of all the workers in our organisation was called by the trade union committee, candidates were discussed, and a vote was taken by show of hands. Anybody present had the right to propose a candidate, and the one who was elected was not personally a member of the Party. In considering the claims of the candidates their past activities were discussed, they themselves had to answer questions as to their qualifications, anybody could express an opinion, for or against them, and the basis of all the discussion was: What justification had the candidates to represent their comrades on the local Soviet. As far as the elections in the villages were concerned, these took place at open village meetings, all peasants of voting age, other than those who employed labour, having the right to vote and to stand for election. As in the towns, any organisation or individual could put forward candidates, anyone could ask the candidate questions, and anybody could support or oppose the candidature. It is usual for the Communist Party to put forward a candidate, trade unions and other organisations can also do so, and there is nothing to prevent the Party’s candidate from not being elected, if he has not sufficient prestige among the voters. In the towns the “ electoral district ” has hitherto consisted of a factory, or a group of small factories sufficient to form a constituency. But there was one section of the town population which has always had to vote geographically, since they did not work together in one organisation. This was the housewives. As a result, the housewives met separately in each district, had their own constituencies, and elected their own representatives to the Soviet. Here, too, vital interest has always been shown in the personality of every candidate. Why should this woman be elected ? What right had she to represent her fellow housewives on the local Soviet ? In the district next to my own at the last election the housewife who was elected was well known as an organiser of a communal dining-room in the district. This was the kind of person that the housewives wanted to represent them on the Soviet. Another candidate, a Communist, proposed by the local organisation of the Party, was turned down in her favour.

[...]

The election of delegates to the local Soviet is not the only function of voters in the Soviet Union. It is not a question here of various parties presenting candidates to the electorate, each with his own policy to offer. The Soviet electorate has to select a personality from its midst to represent it, and instruct this person in the policy which is to be followed when elected. At a Soviet election meeting, therefore, as much or more time may be spent on discussion of the instructions to the delegate as is spent on discussing the personality of the candidates. At the last election to the Soviets, in which I personally participated, we must have spent three or four times as much time on the working out of instructions as we did on the selection of our candidate. About three weeks before the election was to take place the trade union secretary in every department of our organisation was told by the committee that it was time to start to prepare our instructions to the delegate. Every worker was asked to make suggestions concerning policy which he felt should be brought to the notice of the new personnel of the Moscow Soviet. As a result, about forty proposals concerning the general government of Moscow were handed in from a group of about twenty people. We then held a meeting in our department at which we discussed the proposals, and adopted some and rejected others. We then handed our list of pro¬ posals to a commission, appointed by the trade union committee, and representing all the workers in our organisation. This Commission co-ordinated the pro¬ posals received, placed them in order according to the various departments of the Soviet, and this co-ordinated list was read at the election meeting itself, again discussed, and adopted in its final form.

—Pat Sloan, Soviet Democracy (1937)

Between the elections of 1931 and 1934, no less than 18 per cent of the city deputies and 37 per cent of village deputies were recalled, of whom only a relatively small number — 4 per cent of the total — were charged with serious abuse of power. The chief reasons for recall were inactivity — 37 per cent — and inefficiency — 21 per cent. If these figures indicate certain lacks in the quality of elected officials, they show considerable activity of the people in improving government. The electorate of the Peasants' Gazette, for example, consisted of some 1,500 employees, entitled to elect one deputy to the Moscow city soviet and two to the ward soviet. For more than a month before the election every department of the newspaper held meetings discussing both candidates and instructions. Forty-three suggested candidates and some 1,400 proposals for the work of the incoming government resulted from these meetings, which also elected committees to boil down and classify the instructions. These committees issued a special four-page newspaper for the 1,500 voters; it contained brief biographies of the forty-three candidates, an analysis of their capacities by the Communist Party organization of the Peasants' Gazette, and the "nakaz," or list of "people's instructions," classified by subject and the branch of government which they concerned. At the final election meeting of the Peasants* Gazette there was literally more than 100 per cent attendance, since some of the staff who for reasons of absence or illness had not been listed as prospective voters returned from sanatoria or from distant assignments to vote. The instructions issued by the electorate in this manner — 1,400 from the Peasants' Gazette and tens of thousands from Moscow citizens — became the first business of the incoming government.

—Anna Louise Strong, The New Soviet Constitution (1937)

does this mean that the soviet project was some utopian perfect system? no. there were flaws in the system like any other. it disenfranchised the rural peasantry (although not, i would like to add, to any extent greater or even equivalent to the extent to which the US electoral system disenfranchises the urban working class) -- the various tiers of indirect selection created a divide between the average worker and the highest tier of the executive -- and various elements of this fledgling system would calcify and bureaucratise over time in ways that obstructed worker's democracy. but saying that it was 'a monarchy' is founded in absolutely nothing except the most hysterical anticommunist propaganda and tedious orwellian liberal truisms.

even brailsford, in an account overall critical of the soviet system, had to admit:

Speaking broadly, the various organs of the system, from the Council of Commissars of the Union down to the sub-committees of a town Soviet, are handling the same problems. Whether one sits in the Kremlin at a meeting of the most august body of the whole Union, the "C.I.K.," or round a table in Vladimir with the working men who constitute its County Executive Committee, one hears exactly the same problems discussed. How, be-fore June arrives, shall we manage to reduce prices by ten percent? What growth can we show in the number of our spindles, or factories, and in the number of workers employed? When and how shall we make our final assault on the last relics of illiteracy? Or when shall we have room in our schools, even in the remotest village, for every child? Was it by good luck or good guidance that the number of typhus cases has dropped in a year by half? And, finally, how can we hasten the raising of clover seed, so that the peasants who, at last, thanks to our propaganda, are clamoring for it, may not be disappointed?

—H.N. Brailsford, How The Soviets Work (1927)

genuinely, i think you should take a moment and think about where you learned about the soviet union. have you read any serious historical work on the topic, even from non-communist or anti-communist sources? because even imperialist propagandists have to make a pretence at engaging with actual facts on the ground, something which you haven't done at all -- and yet you speak with astounding confidence. i recommend you read some serious books instead of animal farm and reflect on why you believe the things you believe and how you know the things you think you know.

#ask #barkmoon

1K notes · View notes

matan4il · 4 months

Note

Hello! What kind of power does the recent ICC statement hold, and what kind of precedent will the arrest of Netanyahu and other several high ranking members of the Israeli government set? I'm genuinely frightened, as I can't imagine that the consequences will be anything but utterly disastrous

Hi Nonnie!

Honestly, I've read and heard so much about this topic, I will do my best to convey what I've been exposed to and processed, but keep in mind that I am not a legal expert.

First, I just wanna point out that for the time being, the ICC's chief prosecutor Karim Khan has only asked for arrest warrants against Hamas' leaders and Israeli ones. They've not been granted yet.

Second, a short explanation on the difference between the UN's two international courts.

The ICJ (International Court of Justice) is where states can be "judged" and "be sentenced," with some judicial outcomes having more real life consequences than others. This is upheld through conventions these states are signed on to (apparently, this is somewhat problematic, because it means the judges are not necessarily using established laws, rather they go by loose and open to interpretation statements that exist in the conventions), while the ICC (International Criminal Court) can only be used to prosecute individuals, not states, for their own crimes that they personally committed or oversaw.

The ICC's record in actually bringing major human rights violators to justice is... rather poor. It's not very good at getting these leaders extradited, so the court can put them on trial (because it's really easy to not travel at all to avoid extradition, especially for a wealthy tyrant who got rich from their war crimes, or to only travel to countries the criminal has reason to believe won't extradite him... shall we talk again about South Africa not extraditing Omar al-Bashir when he was on its soil, despite being responsible for countless murders in his country of Sudan?) and then, even on the rare occasion when they do get a leader extradited and put on trial... more than one ended up being exonerated by the court. Most people prosecuted there are NOT brought to justice.

In the case of Israel, it is NOT a party to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC. It initially wanted to join, but then had reason to believe the ICC might end up being used to wage political warfare instead of justice. I think seeing this proves Israel was right. BTW, the US ended up not being a party for the same reason. The ICC can only investigate and prosecute for 1 of 4 possible crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against peace. This means if you want to prosecute someone at the ICC, you HAVE to accuse them of one of these crimes, giving people motivation to make false accusations if need be), and only if that person's own country is "unwilling" or "unable" to do so.

That means Israel has several reasons to point out that the ICC's chief prosecutor is abusing his power: Israel not being a party to the Rome Statute means he has no jurisdiction over us (which means Israelis prosecuted will not even "get to" appear in court and plead their case, because as subjects of Israeli law, they can't recognize the court), it has not yet been established beyond doubt that any of the aforementioned crimes has actually been committed (how do you prosecute someone for a murder that might not have been a murder?) and lastly, Israel as a democratic country has an independent judicial system, which is both willing and able to investigate and put on trial its leaders (this is demonstrated by the fact that several of our past leaders have been put on trial, some even found guilty and imprisoned, and that our current prime minister, one of the two Israeli men the ICC is targeting, was and still is on trial in Israel, and is under threat of imprisonment).

On top of that, there's of course a few more signs that point to the prosecutor's behavior not being "kosher." For one thing, there's the fact that by requesting arrest warrants against Hamas' Sinwar and Israel's Bibi and Gallant, Khan created a moral equivalence between Hamas, the antisemitic, genocidal terrorist organization, which we KNOW carried out on Oct 7 (as well as before and since) war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity, and the elected leaders of a democratic state, waging a defensive war started by said genocidal terrorist organization. There's also the fact that Khan was supposed to come to Israel for the stated purpose of collecting evidence, but he canceled the trip, and made this move instead. What is he basing his request on, if he hasn't completed the measures that he himself thought were necessary to have a proper idea of what's happening here? This is also a precedent, because this is the first time ever when a democratic state's leaders are prosecuted by the ICC, something that as an idea shouldn't happen at all, since democratic countries have judicial systems willing and able to prosecute their leaders.

Now as an idea, if the ICC prosecutes individual Israeli leaders, not states, that shouldn't have an influence on Israel as a country. In reality, it does.

Because the prosecutor's move creates this false moral equivalence between Hamas' leaders, men responsible for insane death tolls for both Israelis and Palestinians for decades through their violent, extremist, genocidal antisemitic ideology and corresponding actions, and Israel's leaders, who are waging a defensive war, in which Israel is providing the enemy controlled territory with water, electricity, humanitarian aid, does its best to differentiate between civilians and terrorists, and even has a legal team to make sure all orders and struck military targets comply with International Humanitarian Law. This moral equivalence plays into every anti-Israel lie and dehumanizing propaganda, and enables the antisemitic wave we've been seeing around the world, so this is def gonna affect Israel for the worse, not to mention Jewish communities everywhere.

But it will also have consequences for Israel as it's painted as more and more of a pariah. "Why did you overstep your own jurisdiction and prosecute a democratic country's leaders?" will get twisted around to "this is proof that Israel is not a democracy and is committing war crimes!" which will make many wanna stay away from us, even though they'd be wrong. If Israel does become more and more shunned on the international stage, not because of actual crimes, but due to public perception, then this can hurt its financial, commercial, scientific and cultural ties. Basically, anything that requires international collaboration can be hurt, and the people who will pay the price will be the regular people in Israel. Ironically, this might also come back to bite the regular Palestinians in the ass. The Palestinians have never done anything (not under Hamas and not under the Palestinian Authority) to develop their own financial system, independent from Israel, so when Israelis will suffer financially, so will the Palestinians. The regular ones, the Hamas leaders and terrorists will continue to enjoy the donated money and stolen humanitarian and financial aid.

Lastly, the ICJ in its case against Israel (submitted by the same South Africa which has failed to extradite al-Bashir, and which enables its own political party guilty of genocidal chants) might be able to now quote Khan's request as "support" that Israel is committing a genocide. Just notice the possible loop between these two courts. The ICJ will take years to decide on this case, but in the meantime, can decide on provisional measures, which will punish Israel as if it has already been found guilty. The ICC, as an idea, is supposed to rely on the ICJ's findings and not prosecute anyone on a crime that hasn't yet been determined to have happened. But by requesting these warrants anyway, the ICJ can rely on the ICC to justify even further provisional measures against Israel.

This is a mockery of justice, a political weaponization of courts against a democratic state whose greatest crime is being misjudged based on the same ignorance and hatred that in the past have led to the type of genocide (against Jews) that these courts are meant to help prevent.

(for the record, several states have condemned the prosecutor for its moral equivalence of Israel and Hamas, but they also seem to understand that this blatant violation of some core principles regarding how the ICC is supposed to operate means that one day, that court can be used against others, too)

Footnote: Khan has never prosecuted anyone for crimes committed in other human-created disaster areas, including Bangladesh, Myanmar, the Philippines, Afghanistan and Venezuela, despite investigations there, and to the best of my knowledge has never ordered investigations into other areas where HUNDREDS of thousands have been murdered, such as Yemen and Syria, or regime leaders whose states sponsor global terrorism, like Iran.

Yeah, one day people are going to look back on this and try to figure out how the ICC and ICJ went so terribly wrong.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

151 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 2 months

Text

While perhaps it's too early to call it a "masterstroke", Joe Biden stepping aside for Kamala Harris will probably turn out much better than any Democrat would have predicted a month ago.

Kamala Harris will likely be the next president of the United States – and that’s overall good news if you care about democracy, justice and equality. Joe Biden’s decision on Sunday to bow out of the presidential race clears the path for the country to elect its first woman and first woman of color as president.

For people who need a historical reminder...

[M]ost people in this country typically choose the Democratic nominee for president over the Republican nominee time and time again. With the sole exception of 2004, in every presidential election since 1992, the Democratic nominee has won the popular vote (Biden bested Donald Trump by 7m votes in 2020).

Now for more recent events.

If, in fact, support for Democrats among people of color is the principal problem, then putting Harris at the top of the ticket is a master stroke. The enthusiasm for electing the first woman of color as president will likely be a thunderclap across the country that consolidates the support of voters of color, and, equally important, motivates them to turn out in large numbers at the polls, much as they did for Barack Obama in 2008. The challenge the party will face in November is holding the support of Democratic-leaning and other “gettable” whites, especially given the electorate’s tortured history in embracing supremely qualified female candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams. (The primary difference between Abrams, who lost in Georgia, and Senator Raphael Warnock, who won, is gender.) Sexism, misogyny and sexist attitudes about who should be the leader of the free world are real and Democrats will have to work hard to address that challenge. One critical step to solidifying the Democratic base is for all political leaders to quickly and forcefully endorse and embrace Harris’s candidacy. Mathematically, it is likely – and certainly possible, if massive investments are made in getting out the vote of people of color and young people as soon as possible – that the gains for Democrats will offset any losses among whites worried about a woman (and one of color, no less) occupying the Oval Office and becoming our nation’s commander in chief.

We shouldn't forget that the VP's mom was born in India. A number of people in the growing South Asian community in the US who may not be especially interested in politics will be tempted to pause their disinterest and vote for Kamala. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh have all had female prime ministers – so there's not exactly a taboo about women in power.

One way to measure enthusiasm for Kamala is to look at how much money is being raised by ActBlue. Not all the money ActBlue raises goes to the national ticket. I donated to a US Senate campaign in June via ActBlue. BUT the timing of recent donations leaves little doubt what the cause of the recent spike is.

For context, first some recent weekly totals (source)...

Week of June 30 through July 6 — $65,220,920

Week of July 7 through July 13 — $48,669,913

Week of July 14 through July 20 — $61,349,601

As of Noon today (CDT): Week of July 21 through July 27th — $150,042,360 and the third day of the week is just a little over half over. In the previous hour alone, roughly $2.44 million was raised.

These are small donations, not like the $45 million per month promised by multi-billionaire Elon Putz to Trump. So grassroots Dems are stoked and are out for a win.

ActBlue is fairly no-nonsense, it's not exactly Amazon in layout. So people are not drawn there by flashy graphics.

Kamala Harris — Donate via ActBlue

#kamala harris #democrats #people of color #potus #steve phillips #voter enthusiasm #political contributions #actblue #election 2024 #vote blue no matter who

85 notes · View notes

nohkalikai · 4 months

Text

More areas and populations have been affected in Assam, which is the most populous state in the country’s northeast. So far, 11 people have lost their lives and 600,000 people including over 78,000 children across 11 districts have been affected. An estimated 68,600 people have sought refuge in 187 relief camps.

The southern districts of the state, including the Barak Valley, have suffered more than the other regions. Landslides, floods and erosion have been reported from here and nearly 250,000 people are affected. Several trains have been canceled due to the rising water level in the rivers across the state. Additional personnel from the NDRF have been airlifted to the Barak Valley region to bolster the rescue and rehabilitation operation.

Mizoram has been affected more by landslides and storms than flooding. At least 29 people have been killed there with the highest toll reported from the capital city of Aizawl. Local NGOs such as the Melthum Local Council and Young Mizo Association have joined hands with the State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) for rescue and rehabilitation measures.

Chief Minister Lalduhoma has announced an allocation of 150 million Indian rupees ($1.8 million approximately) to the SDRF. Families that have lost kin in the disaster are being paid $4,792 each.

Meghalaya and Tripura have suffered less devastation compared to the other states in the northeastern region. Meghalaya reported five deaths and close to 5,000 people have been affected by storms and landslides. A portion of National Highway-6 that connects the state to Assam has collapsed near Lumshnong as storms and rains caused landslides. Transportation in the region has been severely disrupted. Vehicles were seen stranded in videos on social media.

In Tripura, around 2,500 people were rendered homeless and more than 550 houses were damaged due to the incessant rainfall, flooding and thunderstorms. Those rendered homeless have been lodged at 30 relief camps in different districts of the state. Sepahijala, Gomati, Dhalai and Khowai districts were affected the most by the cyclone. According to an official estimate, about 397 hectares of cultivable land belonging to 1,764 farmers were submerged by the flood in different districts.

#northeast

120 notes · View notes

chrysopoeias · 1 month

Text

fma ramblin no1curr

Back when I read more fanfics, I honestly never cared much for post-canon royai with Roy being president. It’s not inherently always bad. I can be convinced there are good scenarios. Or I just don’t care because it’s more about OTP making out anyway. But I just never liked Roy being the president, him being elected to that position and the general public always loving him. All the while he does Good™ (read modern (American) politics the author likes). While Riza gets to play (USA style) First Lady™ and/or the (house)wife that smiles pretty and waves.....

I just don’t think it fits or would happen like that.

Roy wants to become fuhrer, aka military dictator. He is not going to be elected. If he does not choose violent takeover, then the only people he needs to impress are (fellow) generals and get them to all agree Mustang is the best dictator for the role. The general population not rioting in the streets when Roy is dictator is a bonus, but the people of Amestris have no voting rights.

But also, why is it the assumption that Mustang would be very populair? The general public is oppressed, has no free media, no fair laws, like shown in the Maria Ross arc. Even someone born in the warzones, like Ed and Al, have been completely ignorant on what actually happend. The general population has no idea that Amestris is the constant aggressor. They believe they are the victim under attack from the outside. And the people living away from the borders, the upper class, and the people who don’t rock the boat (aka everyone beside the protags) seem to have pretty normal lives in their ignorant bliss. They do not know any different because different perspectives are not accessible. Bradley was actually popular and well liked for a reason. So Mustang changing the whole current military gouvernement structure and power balances isn’t gonna instantly win fans there lol.

Actually Mustangs main goal as military dictator as stated by Hawkeye are

Give political power back to the parlement and have them do elections (again).

Demilitarise the public institutions, including removing the state alchemist program.

Reform military law to make war crimes, well, crimes. And then also apply those laws retroactively, including on themselves.

Of course there is other things Mustang can care about. Like not having constant wars with all the surrounding countries and national security. But if the parlement is back in power, why would Roy, as the military dictator/commander in chief, become the elected president when his whole life goal was to separate those institutions in the first place? Just makes no sense to me.

It’s then the actual prime minister/presidents job to worry about the local hospital or factory worker rights or pension or whatever. Roy can focus on idk.. Creta inventing air plane bombers or whatever.

And Riza doesn’t have to smile pretty and wave and do charity speeches or be The (house)wife™ simply because she is the woman and thats the stereotypical woman’s first lady role. I don’t think she would enjoy being a public figure smiling and waving anyway. She can stay a bodyguard, if she wants to. Or decide that Roy reached his goal and retire with her 12 dogs on a farm out East, lmfao.

#verwijder later #brain mould flare ups😔

35 notes · View notes

whencyclopedia · 4 months

Photo

Ancient Indian Warfare

War was the chief means by which territory was annexed or rulers defeated in ancient India, which was divided into multiple kingdoms, republics and empires. Often one empire predominated or different empires co-existed. The Vedic literature (1500 – 1000 BCE), the two epics Ramayana and the Mahabharata (1000 - 600 BCE), Kautilya's Arthashastra (c. 4th century BCE) and Banabhatta's Harshacharita (c. 7th century CE), all key texts regarding warfare in ancient India, testify to this. Troops were recruited, trained and equipped by the state (maula). There were many communities and forest tribes (atavika) that were known for their military skills and prized as such. Such people lived by the profession of arms (ayudhjivi). Villages providing soldiers were called ayudhiya. Mercenaries (bhrita) also existed in large numbers as did corporate guilds of soldiers (shreni) and they were recruited whenever required.

Attitudes to Warfare

The king or emperor was supposed to be a great warrior, capable of vanquishing enemies on the battlefield and subduing their kingdoms. The idea of digvijaya (Sanskrit: “victorious campaign in all directions”) so that a ruler could become a chakravarti samrat (Sanskrit: “emperor whose chariot wheel rolls unobstructed”) was always emphasized. Religiously, the Hindus favoured war as a means of furthering royal ambition and even advocated the concept of dharma yuddha or “just war” to avenge injustices or claim one's justified right to the throne. Buddhism and Jainism, despite their advocacy of non-violence, also understood the role of war and warfare in the prevailing political system and especially for the defence of one's kingdom against invaders embarked on a digvijaya. The Buddha himself advised the minister of Magadha's king Ajatashatru (492 - 460 BCE) on how difficult it would be to conquer Vaishali. Alongside all his humanitarian work, the Mauryan emperor Ashoka (272-232 BCE) also did not disband his army but continued to maintain efficient means for the security of his people, which he considered as part of his duty as a Buddhist ruler looking after the welfare of his subjects. Throughout the ancient period, many of the most notable emperors, kings, warriors and even individual soldiers continued to be devout Jains.

#History #10thcenturyCE #1192CE #1500 #WHE #[#]

31 notes · View notes

hollowed-theory-hall · 1 month

Text

Ministry of Magic: Part 3/?

The Minister for Magic

Or alternatively, why would anyone elect Cornelius Fudge? How can the minister be replaced so quickly? When are the elections? Who can become minister? And other questions I'm unsure anyone other than me ever asked!

There is some headcanon and speculation on my part, but as usual I stay as close to the evidence we are given as I can.

I covered here and here how I think the Wizengamot and the whole process of law-making in the wizarding world is not a modern democracy. It actually works very similarly to older forms of government in England. Now, the Minister of Magic is a little different since it's a position that doesn't have a clear-cut muggle equivalent.

Yes, JKR seems to have intended the minister of magic to essentially be the magical prime minister, after all the first chapter of HBP is titled: "The Other Minister" drawing this comparison. and the minister of magic is in a way the wizards' prime minister, but not quite.

The Title of Minister

The title itself "Minister of Magic" and "Ministry of Magic" sounds like he is the head of a specific department within the UK Cabinet, just like the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry of Justice. This part fits one of the statements about the ministers of magic from Pottermore:

Generally speaking, and despite many a moan and grumble, their community is behind them in a way that is rarely seen in the Muggle world. This is perhaps due to a feeling, on the part of wizards, that unless they are seen to manage themselves competently, the Muggles might try to interfere.

(From Pottermore)

Basically, the muggles do have a say over the Ministry of Magic since they were founded as technically part of the muggle cabinet. This also creates an odd hierarchy where technically the Minister of Magic is immediately under the supervision of the muggle Prime Minister, although, over the years, this position became less and less relevant.

So, while officially, the minister of magic is essentially a secret minister in the muggle cabinet, and therefore under the authority of the muggle prime minister, they don't act this way. They probably never have, but I still find it interesting.

How is the minister elected?

According to Pottermore, this is how ministers are elected:

The Minister for Magic is democratically elected, although there have been times of crisis in which the post has simply been offered to an individual without a public vote (Albus Dumbledore was made such an offer, and turned it down repeatedly). There is no fixed limit to a Minister’s term of office, but he or she is obliged to hold regular elections at a maximum interval of seven years.

(From Pottermore)

Basically, there isn't really a method that's always true. The first Minister, Ulric Gamp was the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot and the founder of the Ministry of Magic. As such, Gamp was likely elected from within the Wizengamot, and not in what we'll think of as modern democratic elections.

I'd like to point out how there is no limit to how long a minister can stay in office, but elections have to happen every 7 years (or sooner, but I assume most ministers don't try to shorten their own terms). Although this Pottermore article states that the Minister of Magic tends to be a stable position, I went through the list of ministers to see how stable they actually are (I only used the ministers up to Fudge to not skew the history with the most recent war that saw two consecutive very short terms). The average term for a minister of magic is 9 years, with the majority serving 8 or 11 years, meaning almost all ministers left office for a reason other than elections. 27 were ousted from office mid-term, and only 5 were replaced in their elections. (The average counts the one minister that served for 36 years btw). So, while ministers were stable, it's not that the wizarding world as a whole is as stable as Pottermore is implying.

The fact the position is occasionally offered to people in times of crisis (which begs the question, who defines that?) is incredibly odd, and I'll talk about that more later. First I want to cover what democratic elections in the wizarding world look like and what it means. How does campaigning work and who are you really electing.

Many modern democratic countries have you elect a party and not an individual. The Wizarding World doesn't look to have parties. And, as I already talked about the Wizengamot in a former post, their parliament is not elected, therefore, there isn't really a point for a party as they don't need a list of wizards to fill in the coalition and the opposition. They just have the same inherited council and a minister, that is elected separately, and the minister's stuff, which the minister seems to have complete control over.

So, the ministers seem to be chosen on an individual basis, and not on a party basis.

I collected all quotes I could find regarding the minister in the books to see if it'll shed more light on the elections themselves and how candidates are picked.

We hear that Fudge was elected and made a statement after his election:

Cornelius Fudge, the Minister for Magic, denied that he had any plans to take over the running of the Wizarding Bank, Gringotts, when he was elected Minister for Magic five years ago. Fudge has always insisted that he wants nothing more than to "cooperate peacefully" with the guardians of our gold.

(OotP, Quibbler)

Similarly, Lee makes a reference to having a vote:

“I’d say that it’s one short step from Wizards first’ to ‘Purebloods first,’ and then to ‘Death Eaters,’ ” replied Kingsley. “We’re all human, aren’t we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving.” “Excellently put, Royal, and you’ve got my vote for Minister of Magic if ever we get out of this mess,” said Lee. “And now, over to Romulus for our popular feature ‘Pals of Potter. ’ ”

(DH)

All this leads me to believe the elections for the Minister of Magic aren't too different from elections many of us would be familiar from the real world. It seems everyone who is an adult wizard is allowed to vote. I'd guess goblins, elves, and other creatures do not get a vote. I'm uncertain of whether squibs and werewolves can vote for the minister, but my guess would be that they can't if they are registered werewolves/squibs. So the elections in the Wizarding World are pretty selective on voting rights. you can probably vote only if you have a wand.

Ignatius Tuft (in office 1959 - 1962) is stated on Pottermore to have made promises and gained popularity in his elections. This means that like we see in the real world, candidates run campaigns to ammas support and voters. Some ministers in the article like Unctuous Osbert (in office 1789 - 1798) were noted to be influenced by pure-blood wealth. This means that like in the real world, ministers receive monetary support and potentially bribes.

As the ministers are elected via popular vote, it could explain why Fudge got elected. We see him as a bumbling buffoon of a minister who tries to deny the return of Voldemort and an antagonist in the books. Now, I'm not going to say Fudge is a good minister, but he was probably a likable one, which is more important for elections that run on which candidate you like better.

I have no evidence I found to indicate how you become a candidate for being a minister, but clearly, what you need to get elected is to be well-liked and seen favorably. This is something Fudge could probably do well enough as long as he doesn't have strong competition. A lot of Minister choices Pottermore lists are reactionary, meaning people choose a minister that fixes something that happened during the last minister's term.

Fudge came after Millicent Bagnold, who was very positive in the public's mind. She didn't seem to have done much of anything in her time besides allow wizards to endanger the Statue of Secrecy while celebrating Voldemort's fall. Fudge, probably, appeared similar to her, as a silly, likable man who just wanted to continue years of peace after the war in the 1970s. So, I can kinda see why he could get elected. Especially if Dumbledore supported his election (seen as a well-liked, Chief Warlock and past war hero in 1990 when Fudge was elected).

In Philosopher's Stone, Hagrid says as follows:

“’Course,” said Hagrid. “They wanted Dumbledore fer Minister, o’ course, but he’d never leave Hogwarts, so old Cornelius Fudge got the job. Bungler if ever there was one. So he pelts Dumbledore with owls every morning, askin’ fer advice.”

This suggests Dumbledore did help Fudge in his campaign to become a minister and his first years as minister. This probably helped Fudges stand quite a bit.

The above quote also possibly suggests the ministry (or Wizengamot, more on that later) offered Dumbledore the position 10 years after the war and not just during a "time of crisis".

Similarly in Deathly Hallows, it's stated Dumbledore was offered the position of minister multiple times throughout the years, again, putting into question the "times of crisis" bit:

Dumbledore’s future career seemed likely to be meteoric, and the only question that remained was when he would become Minister of Magic. Though it was often predicted in later years that he was on the point of taking the job, however, he never had Ministerial ambitions.

(DH)

And when the ministers are replaced in quick succession, from Fudge to Scrimgour to Thicknesse to Shacklbolt, it seems no elections took place:

“The coup has been smooth and virtually silent,” said Lupin. “The official version of Scrimgeour’s murder is that he resigned; he has been replaced by Pius Thicknesse, who is under the Imperius Curse.” “Why didn’t Voldemort declare himself Minister of Magic?” asked Ron.

(DH)

and that Kingsley Shacklebolt had been named temporary Minister of Magic...

(DH)

This took place during a war with Voldemort, or right after it, so it definitely counts as a "time of crisis" and explains why we don't see any elections in the books although the ministers get switched out on a yearly basis by the final books. However, from the Dumbledore example, it seems a time of crisis might not be necessary to offer someone the position of minister.

If I had to guess who chooses the minister, sans an election, my bets would be on the Wizengamot. The Witenagemot, the ancient English council the Wizengamot is named after used to do just that.

The Witenagemot had the power to elect the next king of England from the extended royal family and not just in the direct line of succession. Once they did elect a king though, they were beholden to said king's rule.

So, I believe that the Wizengamot has an old rule that allows them to choose a new minister (as long as said minister agrees). They are probably also the ones who determine what is a "time of crisis" and when they can forgo a regular public election.

Once a minister is chosen though unless something very extreme happens (like the war with Voldemort) the Wizengamot is subordinate to the minister and the minister has complete authority over them.

Who can be the Minister?

Well, it seems pretty much any witch or wizard could become Minister of Magic. Nobby Leach was the only muggleborn Minister in Britain, but the fact a muggleborn could become the minister shows it's a position more open for social mobility, unlike most ministry positions (most likely because of the wide public elections).

Another note that showcases the more mobile ladder to becoming minister is Leonard Spencer-Moon who was noted to have been a tea-boy in the ministry at the start of his career.

That being said, the majority of ministers have been well-connected pure-bloods, so the above two examples are more the exception than the norm. And I assume that like with voting, squibs and werewolves probably can't become ministers of magic.

What exactly does the position entail?

From what we see, the Minister seems to have control over everything. Fudge could decide where the dementors go, and could execute whoever he felt like (Barty, Sirius) with, like, no trial and no consequences. In OotP Fudge drafted and executed law bills on his own, and probably more instances I do not recall at the moment.

Basically, the Minister can do whatever he wants and seems to be able to override everyone else in the ministry, including the Wizengamot. I believe the Wizengamot could vote to remove a minister from office the same way they can vote one in without elections, but while the minister is in office, they are the sole highest authority of the wizarding world in the UK.

Just as stated in the Pottermore article:

All matters relating to the magical community in Britain are managed solely by the Minister for Magic, and they have sole jurisdiction over their Ministry.

(from Pottermore)

So, it seems the minister's rule and jurisdiction is basically anything the minister decides they want to have control over. From laws to trials to education to sports to literally everything else.

The same Pottermore article I linked throughout this post includes a list of all Ministers of Magic and it's clear each one of them, just, followed their interests. Some founded the department for games and sports and advocated to hold the Quidditch World Cup in Britain, others worked to outlaw marrying muggles, and some, just, didn't do anything. So, it's just a very general position that allows you to determine the priorities of the whole ministry and actually override parliament (Wizengamot/Confederation of Warlocks).

I just thought all this was interesting since I enjoy fictional politics...

#harry potter #hp #hp meta #harry potter meta #hollowedtheory #hollowedheadcanon #ministry of magic #wizarding world #wizarding society #wizarding world of harry potter #the wizarding world is a dystopia #wizarding politics

21 notes · View notes

citrusses · 2 years

Text

AO3 Wrapped 🎁: Drarry Favorites Published in 2022

Featuring eighth year and fuck-or-die fics that were instant classics among classic tropes, steam and suds, mind-bending non-linear narratives, and character studies that made me consider anew the protagonists with whom I’ve spent so many years.

January

Finely Drawn Lines by @the-sinking-ship (E, 61k)

Draco doesn’t consider himself an artist (though the dozens of sketchbooks lining his shelves might suggest differently). Yet ever since Potter returned to Hogwarts, accepting a teaching position alongside Draco, his drawings have taken on a rather singular focus.

February

The Things We Need by @kbrick (E, 25k)

Three hundred and fifty-three days out of the year, Harry is in a monogamous, fulfilling relationship with Draco Malfoy.

Then there are the other twelve days.

Lateralus by @shiftylinguini (T, 2k)

The world after the war was so big, and so untamed. Magic spilled out of every corner, creatures never seen before watching from nooks that never used to exist. There were colours in the air, in the morning dew drops on the leaves―indescribable, and new. Otherworldly, and pulled from a spectrum that shouldn't be visible in their world.

March

Heartlines by @sorrybutblog (T, 22k)

Just as Draco Malfoy's life seems to be getting back on track, the magic at Malfoy Manor is spinning out of control. Auror partners Harry Potter and Angelina Johnson are assigned to the case and quickly find that nothing about the situation is obvious. The flare ups are unpredictable at best, downright dangerous at worst, and why has a Hogwarts first year gone missing at the same time?

April

Heal Thyself by @astolat (T, 47k) "Are you going for the course?" Lovegood asked. "You have the NEWTs.”

“What course?” Draco said, then, “No, don’t be ridiculous,” when he realized she meant the notice pinned up on the board he’d been staring at: Applicants To The Introductory Mediwizard Course For The Coming Term Shall Present Themselves In The Chief Mediwizard’s Office By August 24th.

“Oh, I thought you might,” she said. “Well, goodbye.” And off she wandered again in her addled way.

any day now by @oknowkiss (E, 17k)

The rehabilitation centres were the Minister’s idea, or that’s what the Prophet said anyway. Their stated objective is simple: to provide a safe space for low-tier Death Eaters and high-tier sympathisers to reconsider the entirety of their life choices. All guests–because no one is a prisoner here, the literature brags–are to be provided with shelter, food, clothing, and the guided support of a Mind Healer via a programme they call “ideological restructuring,” which is, of course, mandatory.

Lovesick by @corvuscrowned (T, 8k)

People keep spiking Auror Harry Potter with love potions. Healer Draco Malfoy keeps having to pick up the pieces. But it's getting harder and harder for Draco to watch Harry fall in love with everyone except for him.

The Only Magic Left Between Us by @lqtraintracks (E, 24k)

Harry goes to the market and ends up having to save Draco Malfoy’s life with sex. He saves Draco’s life with sex and ends up with a husband. The last thing he expects in all of it is to fall in love.

Once More With Feeling by InnerLilith (E, 29k)

Draco is dosed with a consummation-compelling potion, with Harry Potter as his intended. It’s a cruel irony, because he’s wanted Potter for years. But not like this.

May

Not Nineteen Forever by @sorrybutblog (E, 6k)

A rogue charm hits on a mission and suddenly, Draco is nineteen again. Harry is still thirty-five and doing his best to look after his de-aged Auror partner (and forget about his long unrequited crush) until St. Mungo’s can brew the antidote. Only, Draco insists on wandering around Harry’s flat wearing nothing but Harry’s pants, flirting like his life depends on it and in the end, Harry’s only human after all.

June

An Emerald In The Sky by @corvuscrowned (M, 7k)

The hardest part about shagging an Unspeakable is that they’re not allowed to speak of anything. All Draco knows is that Harry works in Time. Harry works in Time, and while he’s out there in all of that time, it is as unforgiving to him as it is to anyone.

July

Two to Lie and One to Listen by @fluxweeed (E, 85k)

It’s weird when Hermione announces that she and Ron have broken up. It’s weirder when this is followed by the revelation that she’s already moved on—and the new object of her affections is Draco Malfoy.

He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not by @sleepstxtic (T, 6k) Astoria watches her husband fall in love with Harry Potter.

August

The (Third) Worst Year by TheFrancakes (E, 20k)

Draco Malfoy has one year to fall in True Love with Harry Potter or be turned into a Dragon. And he knows that is never gunna happen. This is going to be the worst year of his life.

Well, minus that whole having to kill Dumbledore or be killed by Voldemort thing.

Second worst year.

Oh, but there was his whole 7th year while Voldemort was using his house as a home base for Death Eaters and making him torture his fellow students. That one was pretty bad too.

Fine, this is the third worst year of his life. Hoppípolla by @moonflower-rose (E, 21k) Falling in love was as easy as jumping in puddles, and Draco Malfoy was completely drenched.

September

The July Tree by @oknowkiss (E, 52k)

Neither rain, nor snow, nor sleet, nor hail… nor well-meaning friends, nor questionable communication skills, nor seven years of hating each other’s guts can keep Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy from falling in love. OR: It’s Eighth Year, and Harry Potter has detention. What else is new? Well, since you asked: Greenhouse Four and the Tree of Life, for a start, and then there’s the new shared Eighth Year common room, and Harry’s sexuality, and these pesky dreams he keeps having about a blond man pushing him into things…

Pack by @rockingrobin69 (Not rated, 1.4k)

It was cute when they were in school, the whole rivalry thing.

What Makes a House a Home by @writcraft (E, 27k)

Ten years after the Battle of Hogwarts Draco Malfoy wakes up in an unfamiliar house owned by none other than Harry Potter. Even stranger is the snow in September and a night sky without any stars. Naturally it’s a matter of life and death, because isn’t it always?

The Unspeakable by @the-sinking-ship (E, 24k)

Healer Draco Malfoy took the job at the International Department of Mysteries for the paycheck and the prestige.But what he got was Unspeakable Harry Potter and the most fascinating curse he’d ever seen.

October

The wrong sort by @vukovich (Not rated, 1.6k)

Draco half-rolled, half-fell onto his back, his skin sweaty against Harry’s sheets. He licked his dry lips and exalted the plaster ceiling with, “Jesus fucking Christ.”

Howl by @tackytigerfic (M, 9k)

After an encounter with a vicious werewolf, Draco Malfoy wakes in a field hospital with a mangled shoulder, a furry little problem, and an inconvenient crush on Harry Potter. Potter, meanwhile, is still trying to save the world, only this time he wants Draco right there with him while he does it. Taking part in a rebellion against a corrupt regime isn't always glamorous, but at least sometimes there are organic farmshop pastries and fancy hotel bedsheets. Just don't ask about that smell of burning.

November

Under Giant Mountains by @wolfpants (E, 34k)

Harry doesn't know where he's going. Everyone else has their life paths figured out; he doesn't even know where his map is. Who'd have thought Draco Malfoy bathing in a Norwegian forest would be the guidepost Harry needed?

but first, we fight by @nv-md (E, 8k)

Fighting with Draco Malfoy has never been quite this thrilling...or this frustrating. Harry's always horny, Draco's in denial, and there simply isn't enough time in the day to fight crime and watch your ex-archnemesis wash his arse.

December

Tapestry by @kbrick (E, 51k) WIP

In 2017, Harry is on his way to Pansy and Luna's beach house. He’s a bit terrified of seeing Draco, to be honest. It’s been a while, and then there’s the little matter of Draco having married someone else in the interim.

In 2001, Draco is drunk, wearing Pansy's mother's ermine coat, and afraid to walk into the Leaky because someone might throw a curse at him. So, of course, he runs into his ex-nemesis and hopeless crush, Harry Potter.

The Same Sweet Shock by @xiaq (E, 17k) WIP

One day, Draco Malfoy is going to get his life together.

One day, he will be a respectable citizen. He will have a respectable job and his last name will no longer be a scarlet letter and people will no longer try to hex him in the street. One day, he is going to live a good, honest, ordinary life.

Today, however, is not that day. Because today, he is driving a stolen police car and will likely be responsible for murdering Harry Potter.

Accidentally, of course; not that the papers will care.

#drarry fic recs #citrus recs #drarry 2022 #i played fast and loose with publish dates for some of these because i wanted the months to be kind of *balanced*#there are lots more 2022 fics on my TBR (hello Erised)#and I'm sure I forgot some great ones I did manage to read this year #so the list itself is a work in progress.

415 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 month

Text

Last month several women rose to the top echelons of international politics. Kamala Harris emerged as the lead presidential candidate of the U.S. Democratic Party, Ursula von der Leyen was elected to serve a second term as president of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas was appointed foreign policy chief of the European Union (EU), and Rachel Reeves became Britain’s first female chancellor.

And yet feminists, while generally pleased, were not particularly jubilant. Every success counts, they say, particularly if Harris becomes the U.S. president and acquires the most influential political office in the world. But there’s little reason to think that the arrival of a few women in top positions will change how international affairs are conducted in a male-dominated world.

According to the United Nations (U.N.), at the current rate it will take nearly a century and a half to achieve gender equality in the highest positions of power and almost four more decades to achieve gender parity in national legislative bodies. There are simply not enough women in top jobs to give the concerted, collected push needed to implement a feminist foreign policy and usher in the radically different global order that feminist intellectuals desire.

“Often the narrative is that all we need is a woman leader and everything will change, but we know this isn’t true,” said Miriam Mona Mukalazi, a fellow at European University Institute’s Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies and a scholar in feminist foreign policy. “They are still in the same system; they can only disrupt it a little; and it also depends on how far they are willing to go [to jeopardize their career in pursuit of a better world].”

Scholars said that whenever women are rulers—from queens to prime ministers—they are expected to act like men and display “strength,” a euphemism for their ability to sanction bloody wars and maintain state borders at all costs.

“Something about foreign and security policy is linked to men and masculinity in a way that female leaders have had to justify whether they were warriors or not,” Ann Towns, professor of political science at Sweden’s University of Gothenburg, told Foreign Policy over the phone. “It’s a significant feature, centered around conflict resolution by violence rather than collaboration and peace.”

A feminist foreign policy, however, prioritizes human security over state security and calls for a radical rethink of the current system. It focuses on eliminating the root causes of conflict, demilitarization, a multilateral approach, and diplomatic interventions.

In conversations with Foreign Policy, many scholars suggested that a step-by-step approach is the only way to move forward and representation of women in top ranks, while a necessary condition, is only a start. They said the idea is to achieve gender parity across the board in public life and push for policy change at home and abroad. Once the current power imbalance has been sufficiently corrected, the practice of international affairs can be fundamentally reworked. Policymakers could even discuss the cons of the nation-state concept.

A decade ago, it seemed some feminist ideas were taking a hold. Sweden was the first to adopt a feminist foreign-policy (FFP) framework in 2014; Canada followed in 2017; France two years later; and then Mexico, Spain, Luxembourg, Germany, and Chile. But all these policies were a work in progress factoring in political realities of the day and did not reflect the goals of FFP as a whole.

Experts said the adopted frameworks lacked vision and ambition. Furthermore, their implementation was made harder by various factors. While it has always been a daunting task to make progress in patriarchal societies and power structures, experts said, an ascendant far-right ideology and political parties further impeded progress. For instance, Sweden’s feminist foreign policy was reversed when a government supported by a far-right party came to power. And Russia’s invasion of Ukraine further strengthened the argument of state security at the expense of pacifist movements that contribute to FFP ideas.

Sweden was the torchbearer. Towns said she witnessed “increased gender mainstreaming” in all government departments and a feminist approach to diplomacy and bilateral trade. “They had to start thinking about foreign trade—what does a FFP look like in trade?” she said. Sweden’s efforts also led to the passing of a resolution in the U.N. Security Council that included sexual and gender-based violence as grounds for sanctions.

On the other hand, Sweden exported arms worth billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia between 2015 and 2021 despite reports that it had ended a deal with Saudi Arabia over the country’s suppression of human rights, according to non-governmental organization Svenska Freds.

According to a 2017 report by CONCORD, a group of 19 civil society organizations, Sweden continued to sell arms to non-democratic countries, including Saudi Arabia in 2016 and 2017 when it was carrying out airstrikes against Yemen.

Towns said she thought the defense industry was too big a beast to take on, even for the government. “That would be challenging both huge companies and their large profits and proponents of national security all at once,” she said. “I think they thought of starting with easier stuff,” such as more representation for women.

Canada emerged as one of the biggest international donors toward female welfare and reproductive health, with an emphasis on gender equality projects between 2021 and 2022. But failings have been exposed: Canada did not show how it chose donation recipients and whether it improved outcomes for women and girls.

In 2023, Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development Svenja Schulze launched the German version of a feminist foreign policy amid much fanfare. They included FFP guidelines for everything from conflict resolution and aid delivery to green policies and directed 85 percent of aid to projects with a gender equality dimension.

“We couldn’t use the ‘F word,’” said Mukalazi, of feminism, until the FFP guidelines were launched. “The conservatives wanted us to call it gender-positive policy, and even the liberals were opposed to the German translation feministische Außenpolitik.”

But the German FFP came in for its fair share of criticism, too. First, it was adopted by two ministries, not the whole government. Second, the chancellor’s position on the policy was unclear, leaving doubt among experts “whether the agenda [would] be implemented at the highest level.”

Barbara Mittelhammer, a Berlin-based analyst of FFP, said Germany’s feminist foreign policy has succeeded in a limited context. “There is a lot of value in more gender programs and instruments and more representation,” she said, “but it’s not a feminist foreign policy in the sense of having a different political priority.”

Feminist scholars contend that German foreign policy has gone in the opposite direction owing to the Russian threat looming over the European continent. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s 2022 Zeitenwende (“turning point”) speech called for an unprecedented investment in Germany’s defense sector, and the country is considering relaunching conscription.

While there is no debate among feminist scholars over ending weapons sales to authoritarian nations, the conversation gets trickier when it turns to territorial integrity or a smaller state being threatened by a bigger, authoritarian nation.

“Its difficult to understand what a feminist foreign policy contributes to understanding the biggest security threat we are facing,’’ said Kristi Raik, deputy director at the International Centre for Defence and Security, an Estonian think tank. Kallas, the new EU foreign policy chief and former Estonian prime minister, is expected to push for feminist policies in her new position while her country faces imminent threat from Russia.

Political guidelines from Von der Leyen’s campaign mention the word “equality” seven times, while “defense” is used on 30 different occasions. Von der Leyen’s focus will also be on defense in the wake of Russian aggression. The guidelines noted that combined EU spending on defense increased by 20 percent from 1999 to 2021; in that same period, Russia’s defense spending increased by almost 300 percent and China’s by almost 600 percent. Von der Leyen wrote that European spending is “too disjointed, disparate and not European enough.”

Harris’s challenges, if she becomes president, would be even more severe. Women and girls not just in the United States but across the world would expect her to improve their lives in a more substantial way than handouts through aid organizations. While experts believe she wouldn’t drastically change U.S. policy, Harris has adopted a feminist tone on several issues including the Israel-Hamas war and women’s rights in Iran. Israel has “a right to defend itself, and how it does so matters,” she said. “We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering. And I will not be silent.”

Harris voiced support for women in Iran during mass protests in 2022 over women’s rights in the country. But Iranians in exile and women’s rights activists expect more. They say she should use her influence to encourage the U.N. to criminalise gender apartheid.

Taghi Rahmani, the husband of imprisoned Iranian activist Narges Mohammadi, said his wife and other activists have called for gender discrimination to be made a criminal offense at an international level. “Ms. Harris can contribute to this issue,” he wrote to Foreign Policy via encrypted communication from Paris.

“I believe that in the broader context of [U.S.] foreign policy and the composition of the Congress, it is unlikely that a Harris administration would apply the feminist label to their foreign policy,” Fonteini Papagioti, deputy director, policy and advocacy, at the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW), wrote. “However, I do believe a Harris administration is an opportunity to advance gender equality globally and at home—particularly with regards to sexual and reproductive health and rights.”

Activists say a feminist foreign policy only makes sense if feminist principles are applied at home on domestic policy first. Harris’s first challenge, then, will be to protect women’s rights regarding their own bodies at home in the United States.

12 notes · View notes

workersolidarity · 6 months

Text

[ 📹 Scenes from Al-Amal Hospital in Khan Yunis, where the Zionist army besieged the medical center for days, bombing and shelling the hospital's surrounds, destroying most of the surrounding Al-Amal neighborhood and leaving behind a skeleton of a healthcare center. Several ambulances were also destroyed according to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS).

📈 Turkish news outlet, Anadolu News Agency, published yesterday an inforgraphic detailing the death toll and breaking it down into categories of killed Palestinians.]

🇮🇱⚔️🇵🇸 🚀🏘️💥🚑 🚨

MASS SLAUGHTER IN GAZA EBBS AS "ISRAEL" PREPARES FOR RAFAH OFFENSIVE ON DAY 185 OF SPECIAL GENOCIDE OPERATION

On the 185th day of "Israel's" special genocide operation in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) committed a total of four new massacres of Palestinian families, resulting in the deaths of no less than 32 Palestinian civilians, mostly women and children, while another 47 others were wounded over the previous 24-hours.

Gaza's Ministry of Health pointed out that there are still a large number of victims trapped under the rubble and debris of their homes and shelters, with local Paramedic and Civil Defense crews unable to reach the sites of Israeli bombings.

According to the Hebrew media, IOF Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi said on Sunday that despite the recent withdrawal of all meneuvering ground forces in the Gaza Strip, the war with Hamas is not over, and will continue.

“The war in Gaza continues," Helevi told the Zionist media, "and we are far from stopping. Senior Hamas officials are still in hiding. We will get to them sooner or later. We are making progress, continuing to kill more terrorists and commanders and destroy more terror infrastructures, including last night."

The Israeli occupation army withdrew all its forces from the Gaza Strip over the weekend, leaving just a single brigade to secure the so-called "Netzarim corridor" which crosses Gaza from the Be'eri area in the south of Israeli occupied Palestine, to the coast of Gaza. At the height of the fighting in previous months, the occupation army had between 30'000-40'000 troops stationed in the Gaza Strip.

“We are fighting this war differently; it is different from its predecessors,” Halevi is quoted as saying. "The war in Gaza continues, and we are far from stopping. Senior Hamas officials are still in hiding. We will get to them sooner or later. We are making progress, continuing to kill more terrorists and commanders and destroy more terror infrastructures, including last night."

“We will not leave Hamas brigades active in any part of the Strip. We have plans and we will act when we decide. At the same time as the offensive effort, we allow the entry of humanitarian aid into the Strip. Hamas’s interest is to present a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, to press for an end to the war."

In a message that echos Halevi's sentiments, Zionist Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant stated that the point of withdrawing troops from Gaza was to "prepare for the expected offensive in Gaza's southernmost city of Rafah."

The Defense Minister went on to claim that due to "military successes," Hamas has now "stopped functioning as a military organization throughout the Gaza Strip."

Gallant immediately contradicted himself a moment later by saying the occupation army is still preparing to "deal with Hamas's remaining battalions in Rafah."

"The forces came out [of Gaza] and are preparing for their future missions. We saw examples of such missions in action at Shifa [Hospital], and also for their future mission in the Rafah area,” Gallant added, projecting a future of mass slaughter like that committed in Al-Shifa on the civilians of the southern Gazan city of Rafah, where well over a million Palestinian civilians have taken shelter from "Israel's" special genocide operation in Gaza.

Meanwhile in Gaza, the Israeli occupation's bombardment of various areas across the Palestinian enclave continued, albeit at a slightly slower rate than before, after the recent international outcry over "Israel's" destruction of the Al-Shifa medical complex, as well as the methodical slaughter of 7 foreign aid workers, including nationals of Poland, Australia, Palestine, and a dual American-Canadian citizen in a series of drone strikes targeting a convoy of humanitarian aid vehicles on the outskirts of Deir al-Balah.

In one example, Zionist occupation forces bombed a residential home in the city of Deir al-Balah in the central Gaza Strip, resulting in the death of a woman.

Similarly, IOF artillery shelling targeted civilian residences in the town of Al-Qarara, north of Khan Yunis, in the south of the Gaza Strip, wounding several people.

In yet another criminal atrocity, Zionist artillery detatchments shelled a number of local residences in the Al-Maghazi Refugee Camp, in the central Gaza Strip, killing four civilians, including women and children, while also wounding several others.

At the same time, local paramedic and civil defense crews recovered the corpses of several civilians from under the rubble of the Al-Shifa medical complex, located in the Al-Rimal neighborhood of Gaza City, while local civil defense crews also recovered at least 8 bodies from under the rubble of destroyed buildings in the eastern neighborhoods of Khan Yunis, in the southern Gaza Strip. Some sources put the total at 12 bodies, which were said to be recovered from the Khan Yunis governate.

Occupation Forces have also withdrawn from their siege on the Al-Amal Hospital in Khan Yunis, in the south of Gaza, leaving behind a fully flattened neighborhood of rubble and debris, a partially damaged hospital, and several completely destroyed ambulances, according to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS).

Elsewhere, Zionist warplanes bombed a residential home belonging to the Al-Khatib family, adjacent to the Al-Mukla Palace hall in Khirbet Al-Adas, resulting in the deaths of two Palestinian civilians.

The Israeli occupation also bombed a tract of agricultural land surrounding Madi Station on the outskirts of the city of Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, with no casualties reported in the strike, while another airstrike targeted agricultural lands outside the Al-Salam neighborhood of Rafah, near the border with Egypt.

Zionist fighter jets also targeted the Al-Brahma neighborhood of Rafah city, while another airstrike targeted in the vicinity of the Al-Kuwaiti Hospital, along with several areas to the northeast of Rafah.

Occupation air forces also bombarded residential buildings in the Al-Nasr neighborhood, north of Rafah, killing at least one civilian and wounding a number of others.

In the central Gaza Strip, occupation aircraft bombed a residential home and a commercial building in the vicinity of the Ain Jalut towers, on the outskirts of the Al-Nuseirat Refugee Camp.

At the same time, Zionist warplanes continuously bombarded the city of Al-Zahra'a, north of the Nuseirat Camp, resulting in the martyrdom of three Palestinians, while occupation artillery forces shelled the eastern neighborhoods of Deir al-Balah and Al-Maghazi.

As the Israeli occupation army continued to pummel the central and southern Gaza Strip, Zionist aircraft also bombarded several areas of the northern Gaza Strip as well.

In one example, IOF fighter jets bombed a civilian home in the Tal al-Hawa neighborhood, south of Gaza City, killing one person and wounding a number of others, while occupation artillery also shelled the al-Shuja'iyya area north of central Gaza.

As a result of "Israel's" special genocide operation in the Gaza Strip, the infinitely rising death toll has now exceeded 33'207 Palestinians killed, with over 14'500 children murdered, while no less than 9'500 Palestinian women have been martyred. Additionally, 75'933 others have been wounded since the start of the current round of Zionist aggression, beginning on October 7th, 2023.

#source1

#source2

#source3

#source4

#source5

#source6

#source7

#videosource

#graphicsource

@WorkerSolidarityNews

28 notes · View notes

notwiselybuttoowell · 6 months

Text

Palestinians in Lebanon rely on Unrwa for basic services such as healthcare and education. The decision by more than a dozen donors – which together contributed about two-thirds of Unrwa’s funding last year – to freeze payments has left the organisation’s operations facing collapse.

The Lebanese government is warning that the suspension of Unrwa’s services could create a humanitarian catastrophe that threatens the country’s stability. Unrwa runs 150 sites across Lebanon on a budget of about $180m a year, according to Unrwa’s director there, Dorothée Klaus.

In places such as Mar Elias, these services are a lifeline for Palestinians. In addition to the clinic, Unrwa runs a primary school for 277 pupils – at 95%, the attendance rate for Palestinians in Lebanon is higher than the regional average – and a small water-treatment facility.

It also runs waste-collection services and has helped to pave the narrow streets between Mar Elias’s colourfully painted tenements with concrete patterned to resemble flagstones.

The camp was established on church grounds to host Christian Palestinians after the 1948 Nakba (“Catastrophe”), in which more than 750,000 people were displaced or expelled from their homes during the creation of Israel and the resulting Arab-Israeli war. It has since become home to 1,700 residents of different faiths, the majority of whom were born in Lebanon.

Despite its peacefulness, unemployment is rife and deprivation is high. Across the country, 80% of Palestinians live in poverty. Growing up in the camps, Kiwan says, “makes you a different person”.

Palestinians are barred from attending Lebanon’s schools, accessing state healthcare or owning property in the country. Most Palestinians in employment have low-paying jobs in the informal sector, but since the economic crisis hit in 2019, these jobs have become harder to find. A recent Unrwa recruitment drive for 30 sanitation workers received 38,000 applicants, including many with higher degrees.

Unrwa is one of the few employers offering white-collar positions to Palestinians. “It is the dream of every Palestinian to find a job there,” says Tarek Moneim, chief executive of Initiate, a programme that supports empowerment and entrepreneurship among young Palestinians in Lebanon.

Lebanon is already suffering from an economic crisis that has wiped out more than half its economy, and a border conflict between Hezbollah and Israeli forces that has displaced thousands of people and threatens to spread to the rest of the country.

Speaking in Beirut earlier this month, the caretaker prime minister, Najib Mikati, warned that Unrwa was critical for maintaining stability in Lebanon and that its collapse could result in “unforeseen consequences”.

The potential for unrest in the camps was made clear last summer, when three months of interfactional fighting in the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp left dozens of people dead and many more wounded, according to reports. Gunmen from Fatah, the dominant faction of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, fought street battles with Islamist militants after the assassination of a Fatah commander. More than 2,500 families were forced to find temporary accommodation, according to Unrwa.

According to Abdelnasser el-Ayi, the director of the Lebanese Palestinian Dialogue Committee, unrest in the camps poses “a security threat for Lebanon’s stability”.

“Unrwa is a stabilising actor,” he says. “Leaving the people without any services would make people much more inclined to join the [militant] groups, who actually can offer them money and can offer them survival. They are already in terrible living conditions.”

#excerpts #unrwa #Lebanon #Gaza #palestine

17 notes · View notes

southeastasianists · 11 months

Text

In the days since Hamas launched a deadly attack on southern Israel on 7 October, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has not made a formal statement about the crisis. This is not surprising, given that each ASEAN member sees the conflict differently. The language adopted and positions taken by individual ASEAN members reflect the interplay of historical or domestic dynamics in their foreign policy. ASEAN is a grouping – but on this issue, not a bloc.

Let’s look at the diverse response from the ASEAN members – where at one end of the spectrum, Brunei, Malaysia and Indonesia have expressed unity with the Palestinians. None of them has diplomatic relations with Israel and all have remained steadfast in their criticism of Israel despite Western pressure. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim spoke to Ismail Haniyeh, the political bureau chief of Hamas, and expressed support for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.

In each of Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia, religion is significant in domestic politics. With Muslim majority populations, there is widespread public solidarity with the Palestinian struggles.

The significance of religion in Indonesian domestic politics was compelling enough for Ganjar Pranowo, one of the candidates for next year’s presidential election, to appear during an Islamic prayer call on a private TV station as part of his campaign. Furthermore, recent public demonstrations in Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur against Israel and the United States reflect sentiment on the street about the latest fighting, which governments cannot ignore.

Conversely, Singapore took a firm position against Hamas and strongly condemned the “terror attacks”. The small island-state has close defence relations with Israel, with Israeli military advisers assisting the Singapore Armed Forces since Singapore’s independence in 1965. Defence relations remain strong, as reflected in the joint development and production of surface-to-surface Blue Spear missiles.

Singapore’s strong stance against Hamas leaves it out of step with its larger Muslim-majority neighbours. Bilahari Kausikan, an influential former Singaporean diplomat, made clear the difference by frankly labelling as “bullshit” a view he attributed to a Malaysian ex-diplomat for the “root cause of the current violence” to be addressed, instead supporting a robust Israeli military response against Hamas.

Nevertheless, Singapore is concerned the crisis could lead to domestic division along religious lines as there is a sizable Muslim minority in the island-state. The government has banned events and public assemblies concerning the current Israel-Hamas conflict, citing rising tension as a reason. And to avoid a view that the Singapore position was one-sided, a government minister later said it was possible to be concerned regarding the Palestinian plights while condemning Hamas’ action. The Singaporean President and Prime Minister sent letters to Palestinian leaders, expressing condolences for the mounting casualties in the Gaza Strip, and pledging a $300,000 donation in humanitarian aid.

Two other ASEAN members, the Philippines and Thailand, have large numbers of nationals working in Israel and have suffered casualties in the current crisis. Yet each responded differently. The Philippines condemned Hamas’ actions, while Thailand initially expressed neutrality, stating that “we do not know the truth about the political climate between the two nations [Palestine and Israel].” Manila’s response could be attributed to its experience battling militant groups in the southern Philippines over decades. As recently as 2017, militant groups professing alignment with the Islamic State seized control of Marawi, a city in the south of the Philippines, which led to a months-long campaign by the Philippines military with regional support to drive the militants out.

Across mainland Southeast Asia, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam issued softer statements, expressing concern about the crisis without assigning blame to any party. The military junta in Myanmar is more focused on regime survival, launching an air strike against domestic insurgents, killing 29 people a few days after the Hamas attack on Israel.

These historical and domestic dynamics inform the policy of individual ASEAN states and provide some perspective in their reading of and response to the current crisis in the Middle East. It demonstrates a lack of unity among the Southeast Asian grouping that some observers argue dilutes its relevance. Yet despite the diverse responses by individual ASEAN members, there has been no official criticism by one member against another. This is consistent with ASEAN’s norms of non-interference in each other’s affairs, which aims to ensure the stability of Southeast Asia, a region that is still experiencing the threat of terrorism, internal rebellions, and inter-state territorial disputes.

Perhaps the silent acceptance of diverse positions is a strategy for ASEAN to cope in the more volatile world that we live in today.

#Southeast Asia #ASEAN #Israel #Palestine #Hamas #Politics #Foreign Affairs

39 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 3 months

Text

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/gaza-chiefs-brutal-calculation-civilian-bloodshed-will-help-hamas-626720e7

Gaza Chief’s Brutal Calculation: Civilian Bloodshed Will Help Hamas

By: Summer Said and Rory Jones

Published: Jun 10, 2024

For months, Yahya Sinwar has resisted pressure to cut a ceasefire-and-hostages deal with Israel. Behind his decision, messages the Hamas military leader in Gaza has sent to mediators show, is a calculation that more fighting—and more Palestinian civilian deaths—work to his advantage.

“We have the Israelis right where we want them,” Sinwar said in a recent message to Hamas officials seeking to broker an agreement with Qatari and Egyptian officials.

Fighting between Israeli forces and Hamas units in the Gaza Strip’s south has disrupted humanitarian-aid shipments, caused mounting civilian casualties and intensified international criticism of Israel’s efforts to eradicate the Islamist extremist group.

For much of Sinwar’s political life, shaped by bloody conflict with an Israeli state that he says has no right to exist, he has stuck to a simple playbook. Backed into a corner, he looks to violence for a way out. The current fight in Gaza is no exception.

In dozens of messages—reviewed by The Wall Street Journal—that Sinwar has transmitted to cease-fire negotiators, Hamas compatriots outside Gaza and others, he’s shown a cold disregard for human life and made clear he believes Israel has more to lose from the war than Hamas. The messages were shared by multiple people with differing views of Sinwar.

More than 37,000 people have been killed in Gaza since the start of the war, most of them civilians, Palestinian officials say. The figure doesn’t specify how many were combatants. Health authorities said almost 300 Palestinians were killed Saturday in an Israeli raid that rescued four hostages kept in captivity in homes surrounded by civilians—driving home for some Palestinians their role as pawns for Hamas.

In one message to Hamas leaders in Doha, Sinwar cited civilian losses in national-liberation conflicts in places such as Algeria, where hundreds of thousands of people died fighting for independence from France, saying, “these are necessary sacrifices.”

In an April 11 letter to Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh after three of Haniyeh’s adult sons were killed by an Israeli airstrike, Sinwar wrote that their deaths and those of other Palestinians would “infuse life into the veins of this nation, prompting it to rise to its glory and honor.”

Sinwar isn’t the first Palestinian leader to embrace bloodshed as a means to pressure Israel. But the scale of the collateral damage in this war—civilians killed and destruction wrought—is unprecedented between Israelis and Palestinians.

Despite Israel’s ferocious effort to kill him, Sinwar has survived and micromanaged Hamas’s war effort, drafting letters, sending messages to cease-fire negotiators and deciding when the U.S.-designated terrorist group ramps up or dials back its attacks.

His ultimate goal appears to be to win a permanent cease-fire that allows Hamas to declare a historic victory by outlasting Israel and claim leadership of the Palestinian national cause.

President Biden is trying to force Israel and Hamas to halt the war. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is opposed to permanently ending the fight before what he calls “total victory” over Hamas.

Even without a lasting truce, Sinwar believes Netanyahu has few options other than occupying Gaza and getting bogged down fighting a Hamas-led insurgency for months or years.

It is an outcome that Sinwar foreshadowed six years ago when he first became leader in the Gaza Strip. Hamas might lose a war with Israel, but it would cause an Israeli occupation of more than two million Palestinians.

“For Netanyahu, a victory would be even worse than a defeat,” Sinwar told an Italian journalist writing in 2018 in an Israeli daily, Yedioth Ahronoth.

Sinwar, now in his early 60s, was roughly 5 years old when the 1967 war brought him his first experience of significant violence between Israelis and Arabs. That brief fight reordered the Middle East. Israel took control of the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank from Jordan. It also captured the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, as well as the Gaza Strip, where Sinwar grew up in a United Nations-run refugee camp.

The conflict was a constant presence. Sinwar published a novel in 2004 while in Israeli prison and wrote in the preface that it was based on his own experiences. In the book, a father digs a deep hole in the yard of the refugee camp during the 1967 war, covering it with wood and metal to make a shelter.

A young son waits in the hole with his family, crying and hearing the sounds of explosions grow louder as the Israeli army approaches. The boy tries to climb out, only for his mother to yell: “It’s war out there! Don’t you know what war means?”

Sinwar joined the movement that eventually became Hamas in the 1980s, becoming close to founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and setting up an internal-security police that hunted and killed suspected informants, according to the transcript of his confession to Israeli interrogators in 1988.

He received multiple life sentences for murder and spent 22 years in prison before being freed in a swap along with a thousand other Palestinians in 2011 for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

During the negotiations between Israel and Hamas over the Shalit swap, Sinwar was influential in pushing for the freedom of Palestinians who were jailed for murdering Israelis.

He wanted to release even those who were involved in bombings that had killed large numbers of Israelis and was so maximalist in his demands that Israel put him in solitary confinement so he wouldn’t disrupt progress.

When he became leader of Hamas in Gaza in 2017, violence was a constant in his repertoire. Hamas had wrested control of Gaza from the Palestinian Authority in a bloody conflict a decade earlier, and while Sinwar moved early in his tenure to reconcile Hamas with other Palestinian factions, he warned that he would “break the neck” of anyone who stood in the way.

In 2018, Sinwar supported weekly protests at the fence between Gaza and Israeli territory. Fearful of a breach in the barrier, the Israeli military fired on Palestinians and agitators who came too close. It was all part of the plan.

“We make the headlines only with blood,” Sinwar said in the interview at the time with an Italian journalist. “No blood, no news.”

In 2021, reconciliation talks between Hamas and Palestinian factions appeared to be progressing toward legislative and presidential elections for the Palestinian Authority, the first in 15 years. But at the last moment, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas canceled polls. With the political track closed, Sinwar days later turned to bloodshed to change the status quo, firing rockets on Jerusalem amid tensions between Israelis and Palestinians in the city. The ensuing 11-day conflict killed 242 Palestinians and 12 people in Israel.

Israeli airstrikes caused such damage that Israeli officials believed Sinwar would be deterred from again attacking Israelis.

But the opposite happened: Israeli officials now believe Sinwar then began planning the Oct. 7 attacks. One aim was to end the paralysis in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and revive its global diplomatic importance, said Arab and Hamas officials familiar with Sinwar’s thinking.

Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories had lasted more than half a century, and Netanyahu’s far-right coalition partners were talking about annexing land in the West Bank that Palestinians wanted for a future state. Saudi Arabia, once a champion of the Palestinian cause, was in talks to normalize relations with Israel.

Though Sinwar planned and greenlighted the Oct. 7 attacks, early messages to cease-fire negotiators show he seemed surprised by the brutality of Hamas’s armed wing and other Palestinians, and how easily they committed civilian atrocities.

“Things went out of control,” Sinwar said in one of his messages, referring to gangs taking civilian women and children as hostages. “People got caught up in this, and that should not have happened.”

This became a talking point for Hamas to explain away the Oct. 7 civilian toll.

Early in the war, Sinwar focused on using the hostages as a bargaining chip to delay an Israeli ground operation in Gaza. A day after Israeli soldiers entered the strip, Sinwar said Hamas was ready for an immediate deal to exchange its hostages for the release of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israel.

But Sinwar had misread how Israel would react to Oct. 7. Netanyahu declared Israel was going to destroy Hamas and said the only way to force the group to release hostages was through military pressure.

Sinwar appears to have also misinterpreted the support that Iran and Lebanese militia Hezbollah were willing to offer.

When Hamas political chief Haniyeh and deputy Saleh al-Arouri traveled to Tehran in November for a meeting with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, they were told that Tehran backed Hamas but wouldn’t be entering the conflict.

“He was partly misled by them and partly misled himself,” said Ehud Yaari, an Israeli commentator who has known Sinwar since his days in prison. “He was extremely disappointed.”

By November, Hamas’s political leadership privately began distancing themselves from Sinwar, saying he launched the Oct. 7 attacks without telling them, Arab officials who spoke to Hamas said.

At the end of November, Israel and Hamas agreed to a cease-fire and the release of some hostages held by the militants. But the deal collapsed after a week.

As Israel’s army quickly dismantled Hamas’s military structures, the group’s political leadership began meeting other Palestinian factions in early December to discuss reconciliation and a postwar plan. Sinwar wasn’t consulted.

Sinwar in a message sent to the political leaders blasted the end-around as “shameful and outrageous.”

“As long as fighters are still standing and we have not lost the war, such contacts should be immediately terminated,” he said. “We have the capabilities to continue fighting for months.”

On Jan. 2, Arouri was killed in a suspected Israeli strike in Beirut, and Sinwar began to change the way he communicated, said Arab officials. He used aliases and relayed notes only through a handful of trusted aides and via codes, switching between audio, messages spoken to intermediaries and written messages, they said.

Still, his communications indicate he began to feel things were turning Hamas’s way.

By the end of that month, Israel’s military advance had slowed to a grueling battle in the city of Khan Younis, Sinwar’s hometown. Israel began to lose more troops. On Jan. 23, about two dozen Israeli troops were killed in central and southern Gaza, the invasion’s deadliest day for the military.

Arab mediators hastened to speed up talks about a cease-fire, and on Feb. 19, Israel set a deadline of Ramadan—a month later—for Hamas to return the hostages or face a ground offensive in Rafah, what Israeli officials described as the militant group’s last stronghold.

Sinwar in a message urged his comrades in Hamas’s political leadership outside Gaza not to make concessions and instead to push for a permanent end to the war. High civilian casualties would create worldwide pressure on Israel, Sinwar said. The group’s armed wing was ready for the onslaught, Sinwar’s messages said.

“Israel’s journey in Rafah won’t be a walk in the park,” Sinwar told Hamas leaders in Doha in a message.

At the end of February, an aid delivery in Gaza turned deadly as Israeli forces fired on Palestinian civilians crowding trucks, adding U.S. pressure on Israel to limit casualties.

Disagreements among Israel’s wartime leaders erupted into public view, as Netanyahu failed to articulate a postwar governance plan for Gaza and his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, privately warned against reoccupying the strip. Israelis grew concerned the country was losing the war.

In May, Israel again threatened to attack Rafah if cease-fire talks remained deadlocked, a move Hamas viewed as purely a negotiating tactic.

Netanyahu said Israel needed to expand into Rafah to destroy Hamas’s military structure there and disrupt smuggling from Egypt.

Sinwar’s response: Hamas fired on Kerem Shalom crossing May 5, killing four soldiers. Hamas officials outside Gaza began to echo Sinwar’s confident posture.

Israel has since launched its Rafah operation. But as Sinwar predicted, it has come at a humanitarian and diplomatic cost.

Sinwar’s messages, meanwhile, indicate he’s willing to die in the fighting.

In a recent message to allies, the Hamas leader likened the war to a 7th-century battle in Karbala, Iraq, where the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad was controversially slain.

“We have to move forward on the same path we started,” Sinwar wrote. “Or let it be a new Karbala.”

[ Via: MSN ]

Douglas Murray on "we love death more than you love life."

youtube

For 25 years or so, I've been thinking about the taunt that the jihadists - whether they are from Al-Qaeda, from Hamas, from ISIS - the taunt that they make to freedom loving people to citizens of liberal democracies. They always have the same taunt. They say, "we love death more than you love life."

And I've heard this for such a long time. And I've heard it from people who've killed friends of mine from Afghanistan to France, and I've always founded it an incredibly disturbing taunt. It seems almost something you couldn't-- it's almost insuperable, almost unsolvable. What would you do with an enemy that genuinely, genuinely loves death more than we love life.

But recent months in this country have enormously inspired me. Because I've realized, of course, there is a very obvious answer to it. Which is that there is no crime in loving life this much. We will not apologize for loving life. We will not apologize if you bring up your children to hate that we bring up our children to love. We will not apologize if you indoctrinate your children into totally inconsequent and unproductive hatred, if we bring them up to live productive and meaning-filled lives.

And, in the end, it seems to me, actually now between these two world visions, the people who love death that much have no chance of winning against the people of life.

Hamas, like Islam itself, is a death cult.

#we love death more than you love life #death cult #hamas #Yahya Sinwar #Douglas Murray #Rafah #gaza strip #gaza #hamas terrorism #terrorism supporters #israel #islam #this is islam #islamic terrorism #Youtube

12 notes · View notes