#that probably most of those who voted for israel are far right

[joostvision]

Apparently, finnish televoters gave israel 12 points. I've seen posts where our far-right politicians have said that they voted for the country. Disappointed but not surprised.

[elder-millennial-of-zion]

Heya! Just wanted to mention the American/global definition of "left" might be kind of shit vis a vis Jews and Zionism (fucking apparently), but leftism in Israel very much means "we deserve to live here and so do Palestinians let's be responsible adults and fix this please". The party I vote for, Meretz (who have a charter PDF in English if anybody's interested) represents this interest very well in my opinion. In general, a lot of the Israeli anti-government protests, which started far before the war and were decried by the government as The Extreme Left, expressed this opinion - being a functioning country with actual morals means both not having a corrupt government, AND not maintaining the ridiculous, dangerous and demeaning status quo with Palestinian territories, and that this is what actual Israeli patriotism and Zionism looks like. I hope this might help with your definition, because the "right" definitely does not have our best interests at heart :D

Thank you for pointing that out! I’m definitely aware of this, but I obviously haven’t communicated it clearly enough. When I complain about “the left” I’m referring to the American/global/basically-anywhere-outside-of-Israel left.

The Israeli left is the faction I admire most, especially right now. You have worked longer and harder for Palestinian liberation, in more concrete ways, at much greater cost, than anyone in the world besides actual Palestinians. And you’re still doing it even in the wake of 10/7.

It makes me so angry that non-Israeli “leftists” for whom this cause is just the latest trend, totally ignore the work of the actual Israeli left in favor of labeling you all “settlers.” It makes me so angry that many of the victims of 10/7 were those leftist Israeli activists, because those people who were making a real difference are gone, and because their memories are being desecrated as “colonizers who aren’t really innocent.” The non-Israeli, non-Jewish left could learn a lot from the Israeli left’s conviction and courage and integrity. It’s too bad they probably won’t.

This got a bit long winded but all this to say: thank you for being on the front lines and doing the actual work.

[mariacallous]

You’ve studied Russian information warfare pretty extensively. A few weeks ago the Justice Department indicted two employees of the Russian state media outlet RT for their role in surreptitiously funding a right-wing US media outfit as part of a foreign-influence-peddling scheme, which saw them pull the wool over a bunch of right-wing media personalities. Do you think this type of thing is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Russian information warfare?

Of course. It’s the tip of the iceberg, and I want to refer back to 2016. It was much bigger in 2016 than we recognized at the time. The things that the Obama administration was concerned with—like the actual penetration of state voting systems and stuff—that was really just nothing compared to all of the internet stuff they had going. And we basically caught zilcho of that before the election itself. And I think the federal government is more aware of it this time, but also the Russians are doing different things this time, no doubt.

I’m afraid what I think is that there are probably an awful lot of people who are doing this—including people who are much more important in the media than those guys—and that there’s just no way we’re going to catch very many of them before November. That’s my gut feeling.

While we’re on Russia, I do want to talk about Ukraine, especially since you’re there right now. I think one of the most unfortunate aspects of [the media’s coverage of] foreign wars—the Ukraine war and also the Israel-Hamas war—is just the way they inevitably fade into the background of the American news cycle, especially if no American boots are on the ground. I’m curious if this dynamic frustrates you as a historian.

Oh, a couple points there. One is, I’m going to point out slightly mean-spiritedly that the stories about war fatigue in Ukraine began in March 2022. As a historian, I am a little bit upset at journalists. I don’t mean the good ones. I don’t mean the guys I just saw who just came back from the front. [I mean] the people who are sitting in DC or New York or wherever, who immediately ginned up this notion of war fatigue and kept asking everybody from the beginning, “When are you going to get tired of this war?” We turned war fatigue into a topos almost instantaneously. And I found that really irresponsible because you’re affecting the discourse. But also, I feel like there was a kind of inbuilt laziness into it. If war fatigue sets in right away, then you have an excuse never to go to the country, and you have an excuse never to figure out what’s going on, and you have an excuse never to figure out why it’s important.

So I was really upset by that, and also because there’s just something so odd about Americans being tired of this war. We can get bored of it or whatever, but how can we be tired? We’re not doing a damn thing. We’re doing nothing. I mean, there’s some great individual Americans who are volunteering and giving supplies and stuff, but as a country, we’re not doing a damn thing. I mean, a tiny percentage of our defense budget—which would be going to other stuff anyway—insead goes to Ukraine.

And by the way, Ukrainians understand that Americans have other things to think about. I was not very far from the front three days ago talking to soldiers, and their basic attitude about the election and us was, like, “Yeah, you got your own things to think about. We understand. It’s not your war.” But as a historian, the thing which troubles me is pace, because with time, all kinds of resources wear down. And the most painful is the Ukrainian human resource. That’s probably a terribly euphemistic word, but people die and people get wounded and people get traumatized. Your own side runs out of stuff.

We were played by the Russians, psychologically, about the way wars are fought. And that stretched out the war. That’s the thing which bothers me most. You win wars with pace and you win wars with surprise. You don’t win wars by allowing the other side to dictate what the rules are and stretching everything out, which is basically what’s happened. And with that has come a certain amount of American distraction and changing the subject and impatience. I think journalists have made a mistake by making it into a kind of consumer thing where they’re sort of instructing the public that it’s okay to be bored or fatigued. And then I think the Biden administration made a mistake by not doing things at pace and allowing every decision to take weeks and months and so on.

What do you think another Trump presidency would mean for the war and for America’s commitment to Ukraine?

I think Trump switches sides and puts American power on the Russian side, effectively. I think Trump cuts off. He’s a bad dealmaker—that’s the problem. I mean, he’s a good entertainer. He’s very talented; he’s very charismatic. In his way, he’s very intelligent, but he’s not a good dealmaker. And a) ending wars is not a deal the way that buying a building is a deal, and b) even if it were, he’s consistently made bad deals his whole career and lost out and gone bankrupt.

So you can’t really trust him with something like this, even if his intentions were good—and I don’t think his intentions are good. Going back to the strongman thing, I think he believes that it’s right and good that the strong defeat and dominate the weak. And I think in his instinctual view of the world, Putin is pretty much the paradigmatic strongman—the one that he admires the most. And because he thinks Putin is strong, Putin will win. The sad irony of all this is that we are so much stronger than Russia. And in my view, the only way Russia can really win is if we flip or if we do nothing. So, because Trump himself is so psychologically weak and wants to look up to another strongman, I think he’s going to flip. But even if I’m wrong about that, I think he’s incompetent to deal with a situation like this. Because he wants the quick affirmation of a deal. And if the other side knows you’re in a hurry, then you’ve already lost from the beginning.

Timothy Snyder Explains How Americans Might Adapt to Fascism Under Trump

[grumpycakes]

Cause @the-indoor-kites TIPPED ME ABOUT IT???? (Still reeling thank you) it's time for

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE VOTE 2, DISASTER BOOGALOO

SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED???

A lot, but a culmination of McCarthy not going extreme enough for the far right, while also not offering anything to the democrats (actually sometimes promising small ass things and then REFUSING WHEN IT COMES TO IT) has made McCarthy super unpopular w everyone.

AND THEN the govt needed the budget made/approved (an unfortunately YEARLY THING). Far Rights want horrendous shit in there, republicans don't want anything helpful that the Dems want. The classics. But in the face of a shutdown, McCarthy RIGHTLY chooses to avoid it by working w the Dems to pass a few weeks pass to work on their shit to get it figured out.

This makes the far right (Gaetz being the one to do it all either alone or as the point person) lose their shit.

And remember how he had to agree to weird ass rules to get the Far Rights to vote for him? Well one of those stupid rules was, instead of needing a group of people to agree to trigger a vote on if they want to oust the speaker. THEY ONLY NEED ONE PERSON. GAETZ.

So Gaetz calls for a vote on keeping McCarthy. Enough Rebups refuse to vote for him that unless Dems vote for him to save his ass he's toast.

Thing is McCarthy has been badmouthing the Dems to the press and blaming THEM for the budget not happening. So tho the Dems are like LOLL FUCK YOU THEN BRO. AND N O N E OF THEM VOTE TO SAVE McCARTHY. N O N E

So McCarthy is out. His bestie is PISSED and slams the gavel super hard and dismisses them.

We have no speaker, congress doesn't function if we don't have a speaker. (though some are floating the idea that they allow the interim speaker have powers to allow them to pass the budget lol aaaaa)

Repubs gotta pick a nominee for speaker. (Dems are still more than happy to back Hakeem Jeffries). Repubs have two dudes that are most likely. Steve Scalise and Jim Jordan

Scalise

Got shot in that one baseball shooting back in 2017

Has been the Repub WHIP (the assistant leader to the party leader)

Would not say that the election wasn't stolen

WINS THE NOMINATION TO BE VOTED ON FOR SPEAKER

REMOVES HIMSELF AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE???????

Jordan

Was the Ohio Wrestling Coach when their Team Doctor (Strauss) abused players (Denies knowing anything, is not believed)

wanted to be speaker after Paul Ryan was ousted (but dems won the house and his dreams were THWARTED)

Wanted to be minority leader, McCarthy won instead

actually floated himself as an option when McCarthy lost the first 3 votes earlier in the year

May have been asking for a pardon after jan 6

So like neither of these dudes are great, but I would have assumed the Whip would be the next speaker... and then he stepped away????

They could have voted last week, but declined w some republicans saying that Jordan didn’t have the votes. so they were taking the weekend to get ppl on board.

BRINGING US TO TUSEDAY 10/17/2023 around like noon.

Stefanik is in an aggressively pink skirt suit (probably not the right term) and gives a basic ass speech for Jim Jordan. Kinda a WE GOTTA GET IT TOGETHER SO VOTE FOR OUR IDIOT sentiment. Pro Israel cause they’re hoping that makes republicans care (loll please)

Jim Aguilar comes up, nice to see u again sir. Also gives a basic ass speech but Dems. They chant w him on a repeated line. Like okay but weird. Nominates Jeffries.

No other nominations.

NOTABLE VOTES

(literally no promises on spelling)

Bacon - McCarthy

Billorakis - MIA/doesn’t vote when recalled

Boebert - toes the line w Jordan

Buck - MIA/Emmer on recall

Chavez DeReemer - McCarthy (rumbling from the crowd)

Connolly - says something but votes Jeffries crowd gives reaction

DeEspazito - Zelden (who the fuck is that)

Diaz-Ballart - Scalise (Republicans you have one job……)

Ellsey - García (bunch of murmuring and again WHO THE FUCK)

Gonzales (Tony) - Scalise (well Jordan’s for sure lost)

Granger - Scalise

James - MIA/votes for John Cole in the recall (????)

The respective parties clap w their nominees vote for themselves. It is dumb and wasting time (but the republicans don’t sound as enthusiastic as the dems rofl)

Joyce - MIA/votes Jordan on recall

Kelly of PA - Scalise

Kiggins of VA - McCarthy (my dudes, he’s not getting re-elected…)

LaLota - Zelden (oh fun, he has more than one supporter)

LaMaufa - MIA/McCarthy on recall

Lawler - McCarthy

Lee of NV - vote for Jeffries but gets laughter???

McCarthy - Jordan (gets applauded. Hope that stings u fart)

Pelosi gets applause for her Jeffries vote

Rutherford - Scalise

Scalise - gets “Good Boy” claps for voting Jordan

Scott (Austin) - gets applause for voting Jordan?

Simpson - Scalise

Spartz - MIA/votes for Massey (loll you can hear a reporter go Massey??? When it’s called)

VanOrden - gets one dingus clapping for him for voting Jordan?

Womack - Scalise (y’all a mess)

432 Present • 217 votes to win

200 votes Jordan

212 votes Jeffries (dems erupt in cheers, interim speaker looks annoyed lol)

6 McCarthy (sad my dudes)

3 Lee Zelden

7 Scalise (ha ha even Scalise beat you McCarthy)

1 Garcia

1 Tom Emmer

1 Tom Cole

1 Tom Massey

(Damn the toms)

No majority, no speaker has been chosen.

Interim speaker is REAL LOUD w that damn gavel. Immediately calls recess, feed cuts out.

They go into recess for like 2 hours.

NEWS HIGHLIGHTS

- Rep Huizenga talks to reporters says he’s leaving cause they need to take more time to get more idiots on board.

- Spokesperson said 2nd vote to come at 6pm (it did not lmao)

- Jordan apparently asked to meet w Scalise to get more ppl on board. SCALISE APPARENTLY DECLINED

- Rep Buck said Jordan will lose more votes if he tries again. This could deflate the republicans in wanting to vote for him if he’s not a winning candidate

- 9 Republicans would have to vote present to allow Jeffries to win (which he would, since Jordan didn’t get over 200) but it would be against their interest and political suicide.

- republicans who don’t like Jordan were pushing for a second vote that night to further embarrass Jordan

Vote 2 next! >

[zarekthelordofthefries]

I want to say my peace on this just to get it out of my head. Political stuff, talking about the American election and everything.

I am probably going to vote for Joe Biden. I don't feel good about it. It makes me sick to my stomach. The man is awful. Trump has the conviction to make things far worse than Biden, so if forced to pick between the two unfortunately Biden is the better choice.

I also don't think Biden is going to win. He is woefully unpopular with the right and the left both. He has demolished every single ounce of goodwill he ever earned. His greatest saving grace was being better than Trump the first time, and since then he has so thoroughly botched his own PR that it has become increasingly difficult for people to say that genuinely.

Again, I say this as someone who is probably going to vote for him. But I legitimately can't imagine being mad at someone who doesn't. I mean, mad at someone who votes for Trump, of course, fuck those people. But someone who just wants to abstain? Someone who will go to the polls and vote on everything but the presidency? How can I blame someone for that?

At this point I don't think it's unfair to say Biden is a monster. He technically doesn't support Netanyahu, but he quite obviously supports Israel. He clearly has no compunctions with supporting the occupation, displacement, and genocide of Palestinians -- he shakes his fist impotently at Netanyahu because his actions make Israel look bad, not for any ideological reasons.

He's better than Trump. Getting shot in the foot is better than getting shot in the chest. I can't blame people for not being eager to get shot in the foot.

I just think it's important to maintain perspective here. If/when Biden loses, there are people we can blame. The people to blame aren't Palestinian-Americans who can't bring themselves to vote for someone who provides the bombs killing their families. The people to blame are the Republican party (for shaping themselves into a constant looming sword of Damocles hanging over all human rights) and the Biden administration itself (for being so dedicated to violent oppression they can't even realize that everyone looks at them like the insincere supervillains they are).

We go online and we fight and we argue and we yell and what is it for? We all recognize how fucked the system is, no one even disagrees on that anymore, we're all just yelling at each other over whether taking part in the system is complicity or resistance, and the fact is it's BOTH. Harm reduction is real, but so is this America-centric egotism that looks at the election between two genocidal old men as the most important decider in this conflict.

This isn't me making a call to action. I don't care whether or not anyone votes. I'm too goddamn tired to care. Because what does it matter? What does any of our petty internet squabbling matter when people are dying? When hundreds of children have been murdered?

I am tired and I am sad and I just don't care about presidents now. I might never again. Just...be kind to each other. Think about the things you say, your priorities. Whether you tick a box on a piece of paper or not matters far less than how you actually try to help people and spread awareness, okay? Please remember that.

[nokingsonlyfooles]

But, really, wouldn't it be more antisemitic NOT to believe in blood libel?

I should really stop reading the news, but it's less personal than the feed. Nevertheless, I do start to feel like I'm losing my damn mind.

OK, so dual loyalty is a bona fide antisemitic lie with historic credentials. It got Jews killed as far back as Roman times and can still get them killed today. And it's flexible! It got Japanese-Americans thrown in camps in Word War II, and, oddly enough, has also been used against Catholics.

So it's SUPER fuckin weird to see all the Democratic pushback in this article is characterized as, "Of COURSE we support Israel and will consider the dual loyalty of our Jewish constituents in our behaviour and policy! Our party LOVES Israel/Jewish people and considers them interchangeable!" with no room for "fuck your fucking obvious antisemitic premise, we will not engage with the topic on these terms."

I don't know if it's the press or the party (it's probably both) but the Democratic side of the story is: We accept the terms and will help silence anti-colonial, anti-genocide Jewish voices, but we need to correct this misinformation about Democratic support of Israel. They support it SO MUCH! A person can make public statements disapproving of a genocide and still do everything in their power to make sure it continues - if that's what The People want!

Yes. A person can. Boy, can they. But that's beside my point.

Imagine doing this with blood libel, another antisemitic slur with legs. Imagine having an international conversation where where all the loudest voices accept that the Jews will be drinking a certain amount of Catholic blood, they need it - nevermind all the Jewish voices insisting they don't! - and it would be terribly insensitive of us to deny them that, really. Imagine, also, that there are non-zero Jewish voices out there agreeing with the lie, for political reasons. The motivation is generational trauma that continues to this day, and it's hard to make good decisions under those circumstances, but this is politics. This is political strategy. If you value nationbuilding over not perpetuating antisemitic lies, for whatever reason, this looks like a good play right now!

My obvious political leanings aside, just from a historical perspective, this is not a good play. Just... none of it. If you want safety or stability or a foothold in the Middle East, or to win elections... Maybe you'll get away with it this cycle. Maybe. But you're running up a bill here, and the most-vulnerable people will be paying it. They're already paying right now.

[tardistimeladyyeah]

I will try to make this my last post about politics but no promises (I'm anxious and a political science student).

(P.S. If you don't read this whole long post, read the last chunk).

This will make sense at the end of this post, but it deserves to go up here: We can't help people overseas if we're burning, and we're holding a match over a vat of gasoline. The voters are holding the match, the reelection of Trump is the match, and the United States is the gasoline. The ensuing flame is the Civil War they want so badly. We will have nobody to blame but ourselves if we drop that match.

Is there a genocide in Palestine? Yes. Does the United States need to separate themselves from Israel until they stop and align ourselves with stopping it? Yes. Is it worth destroying our lives at home over just because you couldn't vote for Biden? No (LET ME EXPLAIN BEFORE YOU LOSE YOUR MIND).

People protesting against the genocide will not be heard if Trump is reelected. Have you heard of Project 2025? Essentially, it is the plan to dismantle the current system that we have in the United States. This is not a good thing because it was created by the Hertiage Foundation, a far-right group that supports Donald Trump and his ambition to become a dictator (he is connected to 2025. He is lying when he says he's not connected).

What would a second Trump presidency mean? It will take away rights that most Americans have enjoyed for decades (and centuries if you're a white man). You would not be able protest against the genocide because the insurrection act may be invoked, which would deploy the military to quash protests. Trump may force social media companies to promote far-right views (meaning no more talking about Palestine and helping people by providing information) (Source: ACLU link below). A second Trump presidency would bring a lot of other things listed on both Project 2025 AND Agenda 47 (basically diet Project 2025). It would make abortion difficult to access NATIONWIDE (ban mifepristone and Plan B (the morning after pill) via the Comstock Act, it would ban birth control, it would disband federal agencies such as NOAA (and the NWS by proxy) and the Department of Education (and severely restrict other agencies), put loyalists into integral positions, fire 150,000 federal employees (and probably more), and so much more involving the LGBTQ+ community and immigrants, among other things.

Yes, you should be upset about Palestine. Yes, you should be advocating against the genocide. HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT MAKE CALLING THE ELECTION A DISTRACTION OR MINIMIZING IT OKAY.

This election has the capability of determining the next steps forward for this country. Yes, both options aren't very appealing, but it's worth noting that, as much as you might not want to admit it, Biden has done good things. Those don't overpower helping fund a genocide, but it's also worth noting that Congress has the power of the purse (power to spend money) and the president doesn't. Do they approve the proposal? Yes. Did Biden threaten to stop funding if Israel continued? Yes. I believe he hasn't because he's worried about losing support (this election has serious consequences and I think he knows that) from people who are only voting for him because he's not Trump (a wannabe Hitler) and he doesn't have that kind of power. Executive orders can only go so far and can be thrown out by a judge in minutes.

So, what am I trying to say here? This election has consequences. Project 2025 is real and the Supreme Court gave Trump the okay to start implementing the more egregious parts of it under the guise of "official acts." We may not even know what those "official acts" will be. They likely involve nukes everywhere, including Palestine. Remember when Nikki Haley wrote something to the effect of "kill them all" on a missile being sent to Israel (or something)? Trump will do that. He will blow that entire continent up and say he stopped the tension in the middle east when really all he did was kill a bunch of people. Sure, you can say the same about Biden because of weapons and resources sent to Israel on his approval. But, he won't use America's nukes to do that. In fact, he wants to negotiate the end of the war.

If your single issue is Palestine, you shouldn't vote for a third party. You shouldn't vote for Trump. You should vote for Biden because he'll preserve your right to free speech and non violent protest. Trump won't.

Call him Genocide Joe or whatever all you want. Just know that Trump is worse and you're letting him win if you're in a swing state and vote third party. That's how he won in 2016. Enough people voted for Jill Stein in swing states to give Trump an electoral college victory. Look at the numbers (all of which came from Ballotpedia, a great resource).

Michigan gave their electoral college votes to Trump, but only by 0.2%. Who got more votes that, if they voted for Clinton, would've flipped the state for her? The other votes (including Jill Stein). Those votes were 5.2%, which may have flipped the state blue (Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_battleground_states,_2016) .

Wisconsin gave their votes to Trump in 2016, with 47.2% of voters voting for him, 46.5% voting for Clinton. How many people voted for third parties? 6.3%. Once again, enough votes to flip the state for Clinton if voters decided to go with her instead. (Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_battleground_states,_2016)

Pennsylvania gave their votes to Trump in 2016, with 48.6% voting for him and 47.9% voting for Clinton. How many people voted third party? 3.6%. It was close, but it wouldn't have been if people didn't vote third party. (Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_battleground_states,_2016)

I'm not against third parties, HOWEVER, our government is structured as a two party system and now is not the time to test a three party system out when we're on the brink of fascism. Don't not vote either. Not voting is just as bad in this situation. In fact, not voting (unless you literally can't) is not good. I don't care if you don't think your vote won't matter. It does. Look back at the 2016 swing state numbers. It makes a massive difference.

This is not a time to tell people not to vote or to vote third party. This is a time to say that there will never be a perfect candidate and that you have to make sacrifices on policy to preserve or create new policy that is beneficial. This is a time to defeat fascism by coming together and voting for the lesser of two evils. Everyone in the United States will lose rights, some more than others. But, Project 2025 will impact everybody, especially those fighting for Palestine. Don't believe Republicans when they say they're stepping away from it. They're not. If they're voted in, they will do it. Remember, they said the same thing about Roe and look at what they did! Heck, I'm writing this from a state where abortion is illegal, surrounded by other states where abortion is illegal. It's already a crisis and it will continue to be one until we fix things at the federal level because it will stay illegal until a state question goes through (I often say that good things only happen where I live because of state questions and that is unfortunately true).

We can't help people overseas if we're burning, and we're holding a match over a vat of gasoline. The reelection of Trump is the match and the United States is the gasoline. The ensuing flame is the Civil War they want. We will have nobody to blame but ourselves.

All I can do is hope that this got to some people and made you change your mind. But know that they'll keep rebranding 2025 if they lose. You have to vote consistently against Republican presidential administration until they abandon the idea or until it blows up in their faces. Call me a Biden apologist all you want, I don't care. I'm on your side, but you don't realize how bad another Trump presidency would be. You wouldn't be able to advocate for causes like Palestine anymore. You may have to join the military. You may have to detransition. You may have to stop doing a lot of things that you took for granted if Trump wins again. Sure, some of us survived the first one, but a lot of us didn't and significantly more of us won't the second time around (oh, also, he wants to be President forever. They're going to throw out term limits if they try hard enough. They're going to fudge voting results to make elections look like something out of Russia). Nobody wants this (save for the people who advocate for it and support it) and I don't think you do, either.

Look at the breakdowns of Project 2025. If you don't want that, don't be complacent. Don't feel defeated (even though it's hard sometimes. Trust me, my state would vote for Trump even if he was a bag of rocks and it's hard to not feel an impending sense of doom until my passport gets here). Register to vote at vote.org and check your registration status if you think you're registered.

Don't vote against your own interests this election cycle. You might not get to vote for your interests ever again if the wrong person wins.

Some more important links:

https://www.vote.org/

https://www.vox.com/politics/360318/project-2025-trump-policies-abortion-divorce

https://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do.amp?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17212721431126&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Farticles%2Fc977njnvq2do

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/07/noaa-project-2025-weather/678987/

Some of these articles may mention Republicans stepping back from these views. DON'T. BELIEVE. THEM. Take it from me, a person who lives in a Republican trifecta (A.K.A. one of Dante's circles of hell. I haven't decided which one, yet). Republicans lie. They lie and lie and lie so much I'm shocked their noses haven't suffocated most of the state.

[thunder-the-ranger-wolf]

On Voting for Biden

He's a stopgap He's a stopgap He's a stopgap He's a stopgap for the love of every god I know and the infinite number of those I don't,

BIDEN IS A FUCKING STOPGAP

Do people not know that the reason we got here is because the Republicans voted for their own no matter who or what that candidate believed in? They're Republicans and that's all that fucking matters! Why the hell can't most people see that the point is "do not let the opponent gain power!" ?!

That has literally always been the point! It doesn't matter that Biden isn't your favorite. That hasn't mattered since at least 2008 but I know even way before then, that's always been the point!

There are two parties! If your favorite isn't in one of them, you fucking damn well vote for the lesser of two evils!

Because between "is trying to slowly improve things in small increments" and "trying to make the country a dictatorship with all of the people he likes and none of the ones he doesn't." I know which evil I would rather back!

And Biden isn't even that far on the evil scale! He's making pharmaceutical companies cap their prices! He's actually working on student debt!

People on this site are so focused on what's happening in Palestine that it seems like nobody is saying "you do know that Trump or whoever else snatches the Republican nomination would do waaaaaaay more damage regarding that, right? Like they might want to actively get involved. Because that's what they do."

Biden's backing Israel. Yes. He is. That's fucked. I really wish he wasn't.

Trump, if prompted, would probably send his own damn bomb planes to join the "conflict."

Can we please focus on keeping the man who encouraged an attack on our Congress and addressed the fucking Proud Boys on national goddammit television from taking the White House for the second time?! Because if he gets in there... he's not going to come out. And there will be no more President of the United States. And he will run us all straight into the ground.

Just like he did the first time.

[eelhound]

"'Israel has a right to exist' is a combination of words designed less to get across a single clear idea than to mash together everything from a secular democratic one-state solution with equal rights for everyone to lurid scenarios involving military conquest, atrocities, or even genocide. I'll freely admit that, as a descendant of Jews who were forced to flee Ukraine due to antisemitism, I'm not immune to the emotional punch of this kind of rhetoric. But it's important to stop and think more carefully about what it means.

Does it make sense to say of a nation-state — any nation-state — that it has a 'right to exist'? Did Czechoslovakia have a right to exist? How about the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies? The Confederacy? Specific national configurations come and go all the time, and it's far from obvious that their disappearance always involves a historic injustice.

Human beings have a right to exist, and to live flourishing lives. If anything can morally justify the existence of any nation-state, it's surely that its existence — as opposed to its division into smaller nation-states or its absorption into a larger one — serves the ends of the human beings inside them. When one fails to do this for enough of those people for a long enough time, those national configurations sometimes end up being renegotiated (peacefully or otherwise), and the idea that, as a point of principle, this is always unjust is very strange.

In this case, though, none of that is even directly relevant. Israel is by far the most powerful military force in the region. None of its neighbors could seize a single square inch of Israeli territory against its will. Hamas is so poorly armed that Israel’s standard line is that the primary danger posed by rockets fired from Gaza is psychological trauma.

The real issue is clarified when you append the phrase 'as a Jewish state' to 'Israel has a right to exist.'

If 'Jewish state' just means 'state that happens to have a Jewish majority,' then it's fine for Israel to exist 'as a Jewish state,' just as it's fine for the United States to be a 'white Christian state' in the sense that it's a state that happens to have a white Christian majority. But if an American friend told me they thought it was very important that America always have a white Christian majority, and that, for example, our immigration policies should guarantee that black and brown people never became a majority, I would probably call them a fascist.

And as bad as racist immigration policies are, they aren't nearly as bad as incorporating territory into your state and constructing cities full of your own citizens while refusing to grant citizenship and voting rights to everyone else who lives there because they belong to the wrong ethnic group — which is exactly what people are defending when they say that 'Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.'

Israel as a nation-state isn't going anywhere. But apartheid could fall there, as it fell in South Africa — and it damn well should."

- Ben Burgis, from "Israel Doesn't Have a 'Right to Exist' — But Israelis and Palestinians Do." Jacobin, 15 May 2021.

[girlactionfigure]

Zionism and Democracy

Gideon Levy, the hateful Ha’aretz writer who reaches new depths of loathing for the state that protects and nurtures him with every column he writes, has gotten something right this week. But he is wrong about the implications of his discovery.

Last week, I wrote about the State of Israel’s reason for being: the Zionist principle that “a sovereign state in the Land of Israel is a necessity to protect and preserve the Jewish people – and that their preservation is an objective worth attaining.” Such a state, of, by, and for the Jewish people, is what the founders meant by a Jewish state.

This Wednesday there will be a vote to extend (or not) a law that prevents Arabs from the territories or enemy countries from obtaining Israeli residence by marrying an Israeli Arab citizen. The official justification for this law is the large number of children from such families that committed terrorist acts. But that’s only a small part of it: the truth is that without a Jewish majority, we can’t have a Jewish state. Control of non-Jewish immigration is essential to maintain it. And don’t think the Arabs don’t understand that.

The founders also wanted the state to be democratic, and for all its citizens to have equal rights. What Gideon Levy has correctly noted is that sometimes these objectives conflict with one another:

There is no such thing as Jewish and democratic, because on Wednesday the Knesset will have to decide between the two. Those who prefer a Jewish state will vote to extend the discriminatory and infuriating amendment that marks a clear gap between the rights of a Jewish citizen and the rights of an Arab citizen, with outright Jewish supremacy in the legal code. Those who prefer a democratic state will of course vote against the law.

But our real state, unlike the one in Levy’s imagination, is neither fully Jewish nor fully democratic. That’s because some 21% of our population is not Jewish. In this particular case, the Jewish ones can invite their relatives to join them, and the non-Jews can’t. That’s not fair, but it’s necessary. And it is not self-contradictory, as Levy suggests.

Levy demands perfect democracy (more precisely, perfect equality of rights), and insists that any deviation is “intolerable nationalism.” That is nonsense. There is no state in the world that is a perfect democracy, and most are far less democratic than Israel. He should consider that the other side can also demand perfection, that is, a state that has no non-Jewish citizens. That is also an alternative.

Last month Israel was attacked by Hamas in Gaza, on the pretext that Israeli police violated the sanctity of a mosque on the Temple Mount (where Arabs were stockpiling fireworks and rocks to throw down on Jews at the Kotel and at police) and because some Arabs were being evicted from homes in Jerusalem for non-payment of rent. In response, Hamas launched 4,350 rockets at Israeli towns and cities. At the same time, incited primarily by Hamas, some Arab citizens of Israel began an insurrection in cities with mixed populations, which not only included fighting with the authorities, but also the beating and murder of random Jews, and the burning of Jewish homes, vehicles, and businesses.

In other words, some of Israel’s Arab citizens became a fifth column, fighting on the side of the enemy on the home front.

The solution to this problem doesn’t involve more “democracy” in the form of rights for Arab citizens to bring in more Arabs. Indeed, it’s easy to argue that the best solution to the problem, even the only one, is the opposite – for as much of the Arab population as possible to emigrate to other Arab countries or the West.

It is unlikely that our government will choose that alternative. What it will do, and probably what the majority of Israelis would prefer, is to continue trying to walk a compromise path that makes it possible for the state to keep its Jewish character and majority, while impinging as little as possible on the rights of minorities. Even many Israeli Arabs will accept this, albeit without applause.

Why isn’t this real-world solution obvious to Gideon Levy?

He claims that he rejects Zionism because it conflicts with democracy. That is not true, because he supports a far less democratic “one-state solution,” an unstable fantasy that would become a totalitarian Muslim state. As is obvious from his countless columns vilifying the state and especially its defenders, his real reason for opposing Zionism is that he does not believe that the Jewish people, as a people, are worth preserving. The explanation for this lies in the realm of aberrant psychology, not logic.

Abu Yehuda

[antoine-roquentin]

The trust before streets mentality, as currently used, means that the state has to first of all establish buy-in before doing anything. Concretely, if the goal is to make the streets safer for pedestrians, the state must not just build a pop-up bike lane or a pedestrian plaza overnight, the way Janette Sadik-Khan did in New York, because that is insensitive to area residents. Instead, it must conduct extensive public outreach to meet people where they’re at, which involves selling the idea to intermediaries first.

This is always sold as a racial justice or social justice measure, and thus the idea of trust centers low-income areas and majority-minority neighborhoods (and in big American cities they’re usually the same – usually). Thus, the idea of trust before streets is that it is racist to just build a pedestrian plaza or bus lanes – it may not be an improvement, and if it is, it may induce gentrification. I’ve seen people in Boston say trust before streets to caution against the electrification of the Fairmount Line just because of one article asserting there are complaints about gentrification in Dorchester, the low-income diverse neighborhood the line passes through (in reality, the white population share of Dorchester is flat, which is not the case in genuinely gentrifying American neighborhoods like Bushwick).

I’ve equally seen people use the expression generational trauma. In this way, the trust before streets mentality is oppositional to investments in state capacity. The state in a white-majority nation is itself white-majority, and people who think in terms of neighborhood autonomy find it unsettling.

The reality of low-trust politics is about the opposite of what educated Americans think it is. It is incredibly concrete. Abstract ideas like social justice, rights, democracy, and free speech do not exist in that reality, to the point that authoritarian populists have exploited low-trust societies like those of Eastern Europe to produce democratic backsliding. A Swede or a German may care about the value of their institutions and punish parties that run against them, but an Israeli or a Hungarian or a Pole does not.

In Israel, this is visible in the corona crisis: Netanyahu’s popularity, as expressed in election polls, has recently risen and fallen based on how Israel compares with the Western world when it comes to handling corona. In March, there was a rally-around-the-flag effect in Israel as elsewhere, giving Netanyahu cover to refuse to concede even though parties that pledged to replace him as prime minister with Benny Gantz got 62 out of 120 seats, and giving Gantz cover not to respond to hardball with hardball and instead join as a minister in Netanyahu’s government. Then in April and May, as Israel suppressed the first wave and had far better outcomes than nearly every European country, let alone the US, Netanyahu’s popularity surged while that of Gantz and the opposition cratered. The means did not matter – the entire package including voluntary quarantine hotels, Shin Bet surveillance for contact tracing, and a tight lockdown that Netanyahu, President Rivlin, and several ministers violated nonchalantly, was seen to produce results.

In the summer, this went in reverse. The second wave hit Israel earlier than elsewhere, and by late summer, its infection rate per capita was in the global top ten, and Israel had the largest population among those top ten countries. In late September it reached around 6,000 cases a day, around 650 per million people. The popularity of Netanyahu’s coalition was accordingly shot; Gantz himself is being nearly wiped out in the polls, but the opposition was holding steady, and Yamina, a party to the right of Likud led by Naftali Bennett that is not currently in the coalition and is perceived as more competent, Bennett himself having done a lot to moderate the party’s line, surged from its tradition 5-6 seats to 16.

Today the situation is unclear – Israelis have seen the state fight the second wave but it was not nearly as successful as in the spring, and right now there is a lot of chaos with vaccination. On the other hand, Israel is also the world’s vaccination capital, and eventually people will notice that by March Israel is (most likely) fully vaccinated while Germany is less than 10% vaccinated. Low-trust people notice results. If they’re disaffected with Netanyahu’s conduct, which most people are, they can then vote for a right-wing-light satellite party like New Hope, just as many voted Kulanu in 2015, which advertised itself as center, became kingmaker after the results were announced, and immediately joined under Netanyahu without trying to seriously negotiate.

The story of corona in Israel does not exist in isolation. Low trust in many cases exists because people perceive the state to be hostile to their interests, which happens when it does not provide tangible goods. Many years ago, talking about his own history immigrating from the Soviet Union in the 1970s, Shalom Boguslavsky credited the welfare state for his integration, saying that if he’d immigrated in the 1990s he’d probably have ended up in a housing project in Ashdod and voted for Avigdor Lieberman, who at the time was running on Russian resentment more than anything.

In Northern Europe, perhaps trust is high precisely because the state provides things. My total mistrust of the German state in general and Berlin in particular is tempered by the fact that, at queer meetups, people remind me that Berlin’s center-left coalition has passed universal daycare, on a sliding scale ranging from 0 for poor parents to about €100/month for wealthy ones. This more than anything reminds me and others that the state is good for things other than dithering on corona and negatively stereotyping immigrant neighborhoods.

Such provisions of tangible goods cannot happen in a trust before streets environment. This works when the state takes action, and endless public meetings in which every objection must be taken seriously are the death of the state. It says a lot that in contrast with Northern Europe, in the United States even in wealthy left-wing cities it is unthinkable that the municipality can just raise taxes to pay teachers and social workers better. Low trust is downstream of low state capacity. Build the streets and trust will follow.

[crystal-methionine]

The Post-Eurovision ranking and comments from an American that nobody asked for:

1. Switzerland 🇨🇭 Gjon’s Tears - Tout l’univers: I absolutely was enamored by this song, its artistry, and the artist. He can really sing and one of my early favorites from this year. So happy for him to get in the top 3 bc it was well deserved. 100/10

2. Italy 🇮🇹 Måneskin - Zitti e Buoni: Deserved winners. As queer as you can get and I am here for it. Another early favorite of mine constantly fighting with Switzerland for the top spot. 100/10

3. Iceland 🇮🇸 Dadi og Gagnamagnid - 10 Years: A beautiful song dedicated to his wife and deserved Top 5 for sure. Last year’s song would have won hands down so I’m bummed he couldn’t win the first one for Iceland but brilliant song and I hope the group stays together to produce more music. 99/10

4. Bulgaria 🇧🇬 Victoria - Growing Up Is Getting Old: Eurovision fandom will forever say Imaginary Friend or Ugly Cry was the better song to send, but I don’t think they would have won the contest either. This year was strong, and I personally think Growing Up was a perfect choice from Victoria. It deserved top 10 so I was pissed that it came 11th on the night and received so few televotes. 97/10

5. Ukraine 🇺🇦 Go_A - SHUM: To all y’all who said this wouldn’t qualify when the new version came out, eat those words hun. This was a masterpiece, and the live performances just elevated it further. Honestly, Kateryna could step on me, and I would let her. Who doesn’t love an ethnic modern fusion rave? 95/10

6. Serbia 🇷🇸 Hurricane - Loco Loco: I honestly have to say when it came out, it was never breaking my top 20, but here we are. This group of gals is amazing. The choreo, hairography, and the still great vocals won my gay ass over. They served and deserved top 10 in my eye. 90/10

7. Greece 🇬🇷 Stefania - Last Dance: Much like Serbia, I kinda dismissed this as a top 10 song at first, but after many listens and then the live shows, it was one of the best songs this year. Last year’s song was nowhere near a qualifier for me, and then I thought they had a good chance of being top 5 this year. Amazing improvement and can’t wait to see what comes next from Stefania. 80/10

8. Malta 🇲🇹 Destiny - Je me casse: Not going to lie, the studio definitely did more for me. It was up with Italy and Switzerland for winner contention until the live shows. Don’t get me wrong, Destiny is still amazing live, and the song is a deserved top 5 song. However, the costume and staging just really didn’t add to the song and I think detracted a bit. Her song last year was also much better in my opinion. 75/10

9. San Marino 🇸🇲 Senhit ft Flo Rida - Adrenalina: Oh boy this was a party, and the fact Flo Rida actually was there made it even better. The staging and costuming was absolutely camp, and I was here for it. This was definitely not underrated by fans beforehand, but the jury and televote were beyond robberies in my opinion. Granted I know the backing vocals were carrying the chorus a lot so in terms of vocals, I can see where this song got dinged, but this should have been San Marino’s best ever result at Eurovision, and it wasn’t so I’m mad. 60/10

10. France 🇫🇷 Barbara Pravi - Voila: The new Edith Piaf and probably one of the most representative of the country’s culture for a song. A definite deserved runner up on the night but for me 10th place. I loved the staging, the costume, the emotions. It was all right for Eurovision and me. 50/10

11. Cyprus 🇨🇾 Elena Tsingarou - El Diablo: Come through Cyprus with another female pop banger. I’d say if the formula ain’t broke don’t fix it, but wasn’t really enough to crack top 10 this year. Another early favorite of mine this year but soon got eclipsed. Still going to be listening to El Diablo for a while. 49/10

12. Russia 🇷🇺 Manizha - Russian Woman: I can’t lie that at first, this song was absolutely trash to me but quickly rose the ranks and became one of my faves. Same thing happened last year with Uno. We also always love a good female empowerment moment with the native language thrown in. Manizha is a girlboss without the gaslighting and a true queen. Deserved top 10 the night of. 40/10

13. Lithuania 🇱🇹 The Roop - Discoteque: An earworm for first listen and was top 10 for a while for me but like Cyprus, lost out to some others. No doubt this is a deserved top 10 the night of. 35/10

14. Croatia 🇭🇷 Albina - Tick Tock: The first song to get me pressed on it’s placement. Deserved to be in the final over both Israel and Norway (please come for me I don’t care). They freakin rocked that stage during the semis and the song is absolutely a bop. Albina deserved better. 30/10

15. Sweden 🇸🇪 Tusse - Voices: A beautiful song by an amazing artist. Sure the lyrics were a bit cliche Eurovision but guess what...it’s Eurovision. I can hear the voices. Keep carrying on Tusse. 25/10

16. Albania 🇦🇱 Anxehla Peristeri - Karma: This song grew on me a lot. I liked it but wasn’t a don’t skip for a while on my playlist. The live performance changed it for me. She slayed and the staging was everything for Miss Thing. Also native language brownie points. 24/10

17. Finland 🇫🇮 Blind Channel - Darkside: Before you come for me for having this at 17th, keep reading. I’m not a big fan of the lyrics but the song is absolutely fantastic. This style of music isn’t something I pull out on a playlist often, but I had my middle fingers up for this one (and pointed at Germany but we’ll discuss later). Deserved top 10 as they rocked it on stage. 20/10

18. The Netherlands 🇳🇱 Jeangu Macrooy - Birth of a New Age: I absolutely do not understand the hate for this song. I was also a huge fan of Grow last year so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised for being generally alone again. The fact it got 0 points in the televote and only 11 in the jury is not surprising but extremely disappointing to me. This song is a masterpiece much like the ones ranked above it. Jeangu, you are amazing and deserved so much better than this. 20/10

19. Belgium 🇧🇪 Hooverphonic - The Wrong Place: Fantastic song but fantastic artists. Always here for a dark pop moment. Gonna go get my own Johnny Cash T-shirt. 15/10

20. Spain 🇪🇸 Blas Cantó - Voy a Quedarme: Such a heartfelt ballad. I enjoyed it quite a bit and don’t understand the hate it has. Didn’t deserve 0 points in the televote. 14/10

21. Denmark 🇩🇰 Fyr og Flamme - Øve Os På Hinanden: Look we all know this song is cheesy but it’s the cheesiest Velveeta queso loco so it’s ranked so high in my opinion. This is a nod to the whacky and weird Eurovision I love. It’s always in my head and I always find myself dancing along. Deserved to be in the final over two of the songs in Semi 2. 13/10

22. Azerbaijan 🇦🇿 Efendi - Mata Hari: As far as the song goes, it’s enjoyable, but the stage show was a hot mess in my opinion. The choreo looked a mess and the different sheer legging configurations on the backup dancers was not the correct fashion choice in my opinion as I was distracted by the thought of why are they all different. Did deserve their spot in the final though. 12/10

23. Moldova 🇲🇩 Natalia Gordienko - Sugar: The studio version of this song is a heavily replayed one on my playlist bc of the drop and dance-ability of the song. However the downfall of the song was it’s live performance. The staging was fine and the choreo was great but those attempted sexy whisper vocals were not the choice to go with. I don’t want to sugar-coat this 😝 so they were terrible. Glad she made it but I felt her position in the final was one of just pure luck. 11/10

24. UK 🇬🇧 James Newman - Embers: The nul points was a huge ass oof. This song isn’t bad but I can see where people didn’t vote for it bc it’s not super memorable in terms of who all was participating this year. I like the song and always sing and dance along. 10/10

25. Israel 🇮🇱 Eden Alene - Set Me Free: This is how to do a revamp and be successful. Eden is a fantastic artist who can clearly sing, but the live performance was not all that sans the whistle tones. Yet the whistle tones aside, the song is lacking a lot. When looking back at the songs available, this one should not have been the selected one. I was always on the fence with this one and still am. 9.5/10

26. Czechia 🇨🇿 Benny Cristo - Omaga: The live definitely hurt this song in the first minute and a half. The second half was absolutely what should have happened in terms of vocals. Still like the song and listen to it often. 9.25/10

27. Ireland 🇮🇪 Leslie Roy - Maps: This song was a victim of a super strong bloodbath and shoddy staging ideas. The song is arresting and a bop. Leslie’s gruff voice mixed with the modernized Irish sounds is a match made. The staging of this song that required Leslie to run along with the beat and the distracting and constantly changing bits of the performance we’re definitely it’s downfall. It didn’t deserve last place in Semi 1 though. 9.25/10

28. Portugal 🇵🇹 The Black Mamba - Love Is On My Side: I am the first to admit that while I don’t like the song, it deserved the final. The staging and atmosphere elevated the song. 9/10

29. Austria 🇦🇹 Vincent Bueno - Amen: In the battle of the Amens, this one wins solely based on the classy and amazing staging. Don’t get me wrong, Slovenia’s was also elevating but this one did it better. 8.5/10

30. Australia 🇦🇺 Montaigne - Technicolor: This song is a fantastic one for studio. The live since the Sydney Mardi Gras performance has been rough and didn’t necessarily improve. I feel bad bc I do really love this song but it definitely didn’t deserve to qualify. This being said, I love Montaigne, and Don’t Break Me was my runner up last year, and I still listen to it as my anthem when I’m feeling down. I wish I could rank this higher but I can’t. 8.5/10

31. Romania 🇷🇴 Roxen - Amnesia: This song is great in the studio but it got old real fast for me and I don’t know why. This mixed with the poor vocals and the bizarre costume:stage combo was really what did this in and got this low in my ranking. 8.25/10

32. Slovenia 🇸🇮 Ana Soklic - Amen: The loser of the Amen battle, but just barely. The song and vocals are better in my opinion but the whole package was just barely edged out in the end. 8/10

33. Latvia 🇱🇻 Samanta Tīna - Moon Is Rising: Look, this song is nowhere near as good as last years. The queeeeeen sashayed away with that annoying trap beat. 8/10

34. North Macedonia 🇲🇰 Vasil - Here I Stand: Leave it to the gays for bringing musical theatre to Eurovision. The song honestly isn’t that special or memorable but he’s higher up bc his stage and voice are amazing. 7/10

35. Norway 🇳🇴 Tix - Fallen Angel: A great message on mental health outside of the song and Tix seems like a quality fella but I do not like the song. I preferred it in Norwegian. And this low ranking is not at all influenced over him beating out Keiino (but maybe a slight bit tho). 5/10

36. Estonia 🇪🇪 Uku Suviste - The Lucky One: While this was 1000% better than last years entry, it still was relatively boring. The stage was equally as boring so sorry Estonia, but you didn’t make the mark. 4.5/10

37. Poland 🇵🇱 Rafael - The Ride: This throwback to the 80s was a bad one. The attempt at a one hit wonder vibe really hurt it along with the artist’s terrible vocals. Also half the time, he was behind the pyro and relying on backup vocals. 4/10

38. Georgia 🇬🇪 Tornike Kipiani - You: You really should not have to wait so long for the more upbeat rock ending of this. If it was that last 30 seconds for 3 minutes, it would be much better. A definite step back from last year. 1/10

39. Germany 🇩🇪 Jendrick - I Don’t Feel Hate: Jendrick might not feel hate but I do bc that is all I feel when this song comes on. 0.5/10

[newstfionline]

Friday, May 28, 2021

San Jose Shooting Leaves Eight Dead (CNN) An employee of the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), a public transit operation in San Jose, California, went to work as usual early Wednesday morning at the VTA maintenance and dispatch rail yard. But that morning, he brought a gun and opened fire, killing at least eight coworkers and wounding others, one critically, before committing suicide. Around the same time as the shooting, a house in San Jose that is believed to be that of the shooter erupted in flames. Investigators are looking into the gunman’s motive. This mass shooting is the 232nd incident so far this year in the U.S. in which at least four people were shot.

U.S. drivers to get hit by soaring pump prices over Memorial Day holiday (Reuters) U.S. motorists will see the highest gasoline prices in seven years when they hit the roads this Memorial Day weekend, the traditional start of the summer driving season, as fuel demand surges alongside coronavirus vaccination rates. Retail gasoline prices are at about $3.04 a gallon on average nationwide, the most expensive since 2014, data from the American Automobile Association showed. And after a year of lockdowns to curb the coronavirus pandemic, tens of millions of American road-trippers are expected to be stung by those prices: More than 34 million Americans are expected to take to the highways between May 27 and May 31, AAA expects, an increase of 53% from last year but still down 10% from 2019.

Less defunding? (WSJ) One year after the movement to “defund” law enforcement began to upend municipal budgets, many American cities are restoring money to their police departments or proposing to spend more. In the nation’s 20 largest local law-enforcement agencies, city and county leaders want funding increases for nine of the 12 departments where next year’s budgets already have been proposed. The increases range from 1% to nearly 6%.

Competition, not engagement (Bloomberg) The U.S. is entering a period of intense competition with China as the government running the world’s second-biggest economy becomes ever more tightly controlled by President Xi Jinping, the White House’s top official for Asia said. “The period that was broadly described as engagement has come to an end,” Kurt Campbell, the U.S. coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs on the National Security Council, said Wednesday at an event hosted by Stanford University. U.S. policy toward China will now operate under a “new set of strategic parameters,” Campbell said, adding that “the dominant paradigm is going to be competition.”

Poll shows Argentines expect inflation to hit 50% in next year (Buenos Aires Times) Argentines’ expectations for inflation over the next year hit a record, as government price controls have failed to tame elevated food costs. Argentines’ expectations for inflation over the next year hit a record, as government price controls have failed to tame elevated food costs. Prices rose four percent or more in three of the first four months this year, prompting the government to extend some price controls and temporarily ban beef exports. Alongside concerns of no economic plan, the government’s money printing last year to finance Covid-19 social spending is also fueling expectations for elevated inflation in 2021.

Relations in the ditch (Nikkei Asian Review) The European Parliament has voted overwhelmingly to freeze the ratification process of an investment pact with China—a deal that Beijing six months ago considered a big strategic victory. It has sent shock waves throughout China, with only one month and change before arguably the most important event in President Xi Jinping’s era, the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party’s establishment, on July 1. Some party members are worried that the centenary’s festive mood will be dampened by the harsh diplomatic reality. Not only are China’s relations with the U.S. bad, but now EU relations are stuck in a ditch.

China keeps diplomats out of espionage trial of Australian Yang Hengjun (Reuters) Australia’s ambassador to China was denied entry to a heavily guarded Beijing court on Thursday that is hearing an espionage case against Australian blogger Yang Hengjun, at a time of worsening ties between the two nations. China said the case involved state secrets and so could not be heard in open court. Yang, an Australian citizen born in China, wrote about Chinese and U.S. politics online as a high-profile blogger and also penned a series of spy novels before his detention two years ago. Diplomatic ties between the two nations have deteriorated sharply since Yang was detained, with China imposing trade sanctions on produce from Australia and reacting angrily to its call for an international inquiry into the origins of the coronavirus, as well as its 5G ban on telecoms giant Huawei. Details of the Yang case have been shrouded in secrecy, with no information released on which espionage agency he is alleged to have acted for. If convicted Yang faces a jail term of 10 years or more on charges of endangering national security.

The Super Rich Are Choosing Singapore as the World’s Safest Haven (Bloomberg) When Singaporean car dealer Keith Oh first read the Facebook message, he wasn’t sure it was real. A Chinese client ordered a S$1.1 million ($830,000) Bentley—sight unseen—over the social network. “They just asked for the price and when we could do the delivery, that’s all,” he said. “It’s a million dollars to us but it’s probably nothing to them.” Money is sloshing around Singapore like never before. As the coronavirus pandemic hammers Southeast Asia and political turmoil threatens Hong Kong, the city has become a safe harbor for some of the region’s wealthiest tycoons and their families. Singapore has long been a draw for wealthy Chinese, Indonesians and Malaysians who would come for short trips. The pandemic has changed all that, prompting many tycoons and their families to stay for months, in some cases seeking residency to ride out the storm. On a per capita basis, the mortality rates in Malaysia and Indonesia are more than 10 and 30 times higher than in Singapore, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University.

A Wave of Afghan Surrenders to the Taliban Picks Up Speed (NYT) Ammunition was depleted inside the bedraggled outposts in Laghman Province. Food was scarce. Some police officers hadn’t been paid in five months. Then, just as American troops began leaving the country in early May, Taliban fighters besieged seven rural Afghan military outposts across the wheat fields and onion patches of the province, in eastern Afghanistan. The insurgents enlisted village elders to visit the outposts bearing a message: Surrender or die. By mid-month, security forces had surrendered all seven outposts after extended negotiations, according to village elders. At least 120 soldiers and police were given safe passage to the government-held provincial center in return for handing over weapons and equipment. “We told them, ‘Look, your situation is bad—reinforcements aren’t coming,’” said Nabi Sarwar Khadim, 53, one of several elders who negotiated the surrenders. Since May 1, at least 26 outposts and bases in just four provinces—Laghman, Baghlan, Wardak and Ghazni—have surrendered after such negotiations, according to village elders and government officials. With morale diving as American troops leave, and the Taliban seizing on each surrender as a propaganda victory, each collapse feeds the next in the Afghan countryside.

Israeli Police Round Up Palestinian Protesters Out of Global Spotlight (The Intercept) Palestinian activists urged the world not to look away from their struggle for freedom and equality following the ceasefire in Gaza, as Israeli police began rounding up Palestinian citizens of Israel who took part in demonstrations described as riots by the authorities. At least 74 Palestinians were detained by Monday afternoon, in the first hours of what Israel’s police force is calling “Operation Law and Order.” Palestinian rights groups called the planned arrest of up to 500 protesters—on charges ranging from attacks on the police to vandalism to online incitement—a blatant crackdown on dissent, timed to coincide with the dimming of the global spotlight on the conflict. “Israeli forces and police are going on a mass arresting rampage in Lydd, and other Palestinian cities in an attempt to ‘even the score’ with Palestinians that spoke up against their ethnic cleansing,” the Palestinian writer Mariam Barghouti observed on Twitter, as video of two men being detained and blindfolded in the city Israelis call Lod circulated online. “This is what we warned about. Israel will target us all when you stop looking.” “The world tends to look away as soon as Israeli lives are no longer threatened by rockets but it is stuff like this, that Israel does to Palestinians every day, that guarantees future rounds,” the writer and political analyst Yousef Munayyer commented on the same images.

UN envoy: Syrian people face immense humanitarian suffering (AP) The U.N. special envoy for Syria said Wednesday it’s “a tragic irony” that ordinary Syrians are facing “immense and growing humanitarian suffering” at this time of relative calm in the more than 10-year conflict. Geir Pedersen pointed to “economic destitution, a pandemic, displacement, detention and abduction—all while violent conflict, terrorism and human rights abuses continue” in the country. While the military situation is relatively calm in some areas, Pedersen said, “recurring signs of a hot conflict are abundant.” He cited spikes in violence in several areas, with shelling by both sides, airstrikes including some by Israel, and more attacks attributed to the Islamic State extremist group. On the economic front, Pedersen said, the Syrian pound has stabilized somewhat “but the price of essential goods and transportation costs are increasingly outside of the grasp of many Syrians.” And in many areas, basic services including water, electricity and health “remain compromised,” he said. U.N. humanitarian chief Mark Lowcock stressed the dire water situation, saying reduced water levels in the Euphrates river which started in January “reached a critical point this month.”

Famine Looms in Ethiopia’s War-Ravaged Tigray Region, U.N. Says (NYT) Famine is now knocking on the door of Ethiopia’s Tigray region, where a civil war that erupted last year has drastically cut the food supply and prevented relief workers from helping the hungry, the top U.N. humanitarian official has warned. In a confidential note to the United Nations Security Council, the official, Mark Lowcock, the under secretary general for humanitarian affairs, said sections of Tigray, a region of more than five million people, are now one step from famine—in part because the government has obstructed aid shipments. “Humanitarian operations are being attacked, obstructed or delayed in delivering lifesaving assistance,” Mr. Lowcock wrote, and at least eight aid workers have been killed.

Thousands evacuate Congo’s Goma amid more volcanic activity (AP) Tens of thousands of people are fleeing the city of Goma in eastern Congo fearing another volcanic eruption by Mount Nyiragongo, which spewed lava near the city last week. Traffic was jammed and pedestrians streamed through the streets, desperate to escape the impending danger. A new eruption could occur at any moment, the military governor of Congo’s North Kivu province, Lt. Gen. Constat Ndima Kongba, announced early Thursday. He ordered the evacuation of 10 of the 18 neighborhoods in the city of 2 million people. The center of Goma, which was spared when the volcano erupted last week, is now under threat, with activity being reported near the urban area and Lake Kivu, Kongba said. Residents were advised to carry very little and told not to return to their homes until advised by authorities. Many people were seen heading northwest toward the town of Sake and east toward Rwanda. International organizations such as the U.N. mission in Congo had on Wednesday already begun evacuating their staff.

[eretzyisrael]

The ICC is Nothing but a Pack of Cards

There is no world government based on international law, and there should not be one. That seems like something that should be understood and agreed to by everyone, but apparently it is not.

Today, Israelis, from the Prime Minister to almost any IDF soldier, are in legal jeopardy as a result of the overreach of arrogant international institutions and an overly-expansive idea of international law.

In its simplest form, international law is based on the (supposedly) universal acceptance of the principle that a nation should honor its agreements with other nations. If, for example, Iran signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and then develops nuclear weapons, it is in violation of international law. When a country joins the UN, it agrees to be bound by the UN Charter (which, for example, forbids the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”), and by certain kinds of Security Council resolutions. In these contexts, international law depends on consent: a nation is not bound to follow any laws that it hasn’t agreed to.

There is also something called “customary international law.” That refers to principles that are not covered by treaties, but are unwritten rules based on the customary behavior of states and a subjective opinion of obligation. One area in which it is applicable is where non-state actors are concerned, who are not members of the UN and have not signed any treaties. So Hamas’ use of human shields can be considered a violation of customary international law even though Hamas is not a member of the UN and has not signed any of the protocols of the Geneva Conventions. Here there is no consent. But even when customary international law is applied to states the question of consent can become murky, since there are no agreed-to treaties to refer to.

The difference between the laws of states and international law is most pronounced when you consider interpretation and enforcement. States establish domestic courts that interpret their laws and determine when someone is in violation of them. They have jurisdiction over all the residents of a country and their decisions are binding. A state can use force to enforce them. For international law, jurisdiction is limited by the principle of consent and enforcement is more complicated.

There are international courts. The UN has established an International Court of Justice (ICJ), which can adjudicate disputes between nations in the framework of international law. In order for the ICJ to do so, either the nations involved must explicitly consent, or they must have signed treaties that include clauses that require such adjudication of disputes. The ICJ can also give advisory opinions to various UN agencies when asked to do so. Such opinions are not binding on the nations involved. For example, in 2004, the ICJ produced a highly politicized advisory opinion for the UN General Assembly, holding that Israel’s security barrier violated international law and construction of it should stop. Israel cooperated with the court by providing testimony, but was not required to do so or to accept its judgment.

There is also an International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is not a part of the UN; it was established in 2002 by a multilateral treaty called the Rome Statute and is financed by contributions from its member states. The ICC can try individuals (not states) who are accused of serious crimes like genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. The ICCs jurisdiction is limited to crimes committed within the territorial area of states that have adopted the Rome Statute or declared their acceptance of its jurisdiction; or crimes committed by nationals of those states; or in special cases referred by the UN Security Council. 123 states have signed on to it and 42 (including the US and Israel) have not.

Note that the criterion for jurisdiction seriously undermines the principle of consent. The court can prosecute a citizen of a particular country whether or not that country is a member of the Rome Statute, as long as the offense was committed in a country that is a member.

The ICC can prosecute someone only if it decides that “national justice systems do not carry out proceedings or when they claim to do so but in reality are unwilling or unable to carry out such proceedings genuinely.” It can prosecute anyone, even if they are a head of state or a soldier who is required to follow orders. So far it has indicted 44 people, mostly for crimes committed in several African conflicts.

The ICC can issue arrest warrants which may be executed by member states, or any state that cooperates with it. Arrested persons can be tried at the Court’s headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands. If convicted, they can be sentenced to prison terms up to and including life imprisonment, which can be served in cooperating countries.

As you probably know, the ICC’s head prosecutor has announced that the Court would initiate a criminal investigation against Israelis and (presumably) Hamas members for war crimes committed during 2014’s Operation Protective Edge and the defense of the Gaza border, as well as Israel’s settlement policy. The prosecutor claims that the Court has jurisdiction over Gaza and Judea/Samaria, even though “Palestine” is not a sovereign state and Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute.

A pre-trial panel of judges decided that “The State of Palestine” had joined the Rome Statute in 2015, and that therefore – although the Court didn’t wish to decide the question of whether “Palestine” is a state – the very fact that it had joined the statute implies that it can be treated as a “state party” to the Statute. Once a “state party,” it would be unfair to deny it any of the rights and privileges accruing to one! (See pars. 89-113 of the decision linked above). Sometimes an argument is so bad, it’s hard to even restate it.

But since “Palestine” isn’t actually a state with borders, how do we know that the “crimes” were committed within its borders? Easy, say the ICC judges: UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19, which admitted “Palestine” to the UN as a “Non-member Observer State” in 2012 says that “Palestine” includes the Gaza Strip and the “West Bank.” QED.

Regarding the UNGA, I don’t think I have to add anything to Abba Eban’s well-known comment, “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.”

The Kafkaesque ICC decision, 60 pages of mumbo-jumbo intended to obscure the intention to pillory Israel and punish Israelis, proves that the ICC is “nothing but a pack of cards,” in the words of Lewis Carroll’s Alice.

And this illustrates how, at least in the realm of nations, politics trumps law. It illustrates why the expansion of international law beyond the principle of consent is dangerous. And – as if any more such illustrations are needed – it shows how important international institutions are viciously biased against one particular country, which just happens to be the one Jewish state.

Abu Yehuda

[jordanianroyals]

King Abdullah II Interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria

25 July 2021

King Abdullah II spoke to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria in a wide-ranging interview that was conducted in Washington, DC, and aired on Sunday.

In the interview, King Abdullah spoke about his recently concluded US visit, his vision on regional matters especially the Palestinian cause, prominent national issues, and Jordan’s steadfastness amidst challenges.

Following is a transcript of the interview as it was broadcast:

“Fareed Zakaria: Your Majesty, welcome.

His Majesty King Abdullah II: Thank you, Fareed.

Zakaria: I have to ask you about first what seems the most startling thing looking at your part of the world, which is the new government in Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu and you had a good relationship, but a tough one. The new prime minister, however, is somebody, Naftali Bennett, who says explicitly that he rules out the idea ever of a Palestinian state. In fact, he’s talked about Israel annexing the West Bank. So, how do you look at that new government, and where do you think the prospects for peace are?

King Abdullah II: Well, again, Fareed, we have known each other long enough to know that we always look at the glass half full, and coming to the United States, as the first leader from that part of the world, it was important to unify messaging, because there is a lot of challenges as you well know and we will probably get into. So, it was important for me not only to meet with the Palestinian leadership after a war, which I did, with Abu Mazen [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas]; I met the prime minister; I met General Gantz. We really have to get people back to the table, under that umbrella of how do we get Israelis and Palestinians to talk—maybe understanding the challenges that this government may not be the most ideal government, in my view, with the two- state solution (which is the only solution)—how can we build [understanding] between Jordan and Israel, because it has not been good, but more importantly, from my view, is getting the Israelis and Palestinians engaging again. And I came out of those meetings feeling very encouraged, and I think we have seen in the past couple of weeks, not only a better understanding between Israel and Jordan, but the voices coming out of both Israel and Palestine that we need to move forward and reset that relationship.

Zakaria: Do you think that the Israelis can maintain the situation as it is, which is with all these Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel has sovereignty over them, but they don’t have political rights. Israel seems to feel—look, we’re doing fine, we’re, you know, we’ve become an extraordinary technological regional power, maybe global power, economically thriving, the Arabs are making peace with us, even though we haven’t moved on the Palestinian issue. Can’t Israel just keep doing what it is doing?

King Abdullah II: I think that’s a very fragile façade, and I say that because, again, when we have wars, there is a template there; I know what is going to happen over the three weeks and how—the loss of life and tragedy on all sides. This last war with Gaza, I thought, was different. Since 1948, this is the first time I feel that a civil war happened in Israel. When you look at the villages and the towns, Arab-Israelis and Israelis got into conflict, and I think that was a wake-up call for the people of Israel and the people of Palestine. Unless we move along, unless we give hope to the Palestinians—and again, part of the discussions that we have had with our Israeli counterparts is, how do we  invest in the livelihood of the Palestinians—if they lose hope, and then, God forbid, another cycle, the next war is going to be even more damaging. Nobody ever [wins] in these conflicts, but in this last one, there were no victors. And, I think that the internal dynamics that we saw inside of Israeli towns and cities is a bit of a wake-up call for all of us.

Zakaria: Dore Gold, an influential adviser to Prime Minister Netanyahu, recently said, Jordan needs to start thinking of itself as the Palestinian state. In other words, there is a two-state solution, the Palestinian state is Jordan, I think the implication would be, of course, you have 60-70 percent Palestinians, you could absorb the Palestinians in the West Bank. This has been touted before, but here you have a fairly influential Israeli saying it. What is your reaction?

King Abdullah II: Well, again, that type of rhetoric is nothing new, and basically, those people have agendas that they want to do at the expense of others. Jordan is Jordan. We have a mixed society from different ethnic and religious backgrounds. I would maybe contest the percentage in the figures that you have mentioned, but it is our country. The Palestinians do not want to be in Jordan; they want their lands, they want their football team, they want their flag to fly above their houses. And so, that takes us into very dangerous rhetoric, as you alluded to. If we do not talk about the two-state solution, then, again, are we talking about a one-state solution? Is it going to be fair, transparent, and democratic? I think that the one-state solution is far more challenging to those in Israel that push that theory than the two-state solution, which is the only way. And I will go back to the beginning of the interview, that for the first time since 1948, Arab-Israelis and Israelis were having a go at each other. What are you going to do? Are you going to push all of the Palestinians out of their homes in the West Bank, and just create instability on the other side? At the end of the day, Jordan gets a vote in this. And I think our red lines have been clearly identified.

Zakaria: Your Majesty, what has it been like meeting with Joe Biden compared to his predecessor? This is a very different president from the one we had before.

King Abdullah II: Well, I have, fortunately, had a very strong relationship with all presidents. And that is because my father taught me that you have to respect the office of the president, the head of state, and that’s not just America. And my discussions have always been fruitful, done in mutual respect and understanding. President Biden I have known since I was a young man visiting the Congress with my father, when he was a young senator, so this is an old friendship. And I was just so delighted to see him in the White House. And I don’t know what images came out, but my colleagues that were with me could just see the chemistry there. And my son has known the president; as Joe Biden was the Vice President, my son used to go and visit him at his house and in his office, so it’s a family friendship.

Zakaria: Do you expect that you will get a different policy out of Biden than Trump?

King Abdullah II: Well, we have lost a couple of years, and part of it has obviously been the pandemic. And so, it is not the issue of a different policy, it is more of what are the plans that are out there. I mentioned Syria, but also when we look at Lebanon—the crisis there, the people are suffering, starvation is just around the corner, the hospitals are not working. And a lot of discussions we have had here, and I know the Americans are working with the French. When the bottom does fall out, and it will happen in weeks, what can we do as the international community to step in, knowing that whatever plans we come up with, we will fall short of our aims, and we will let people down. So I think it is, can we build plans to sort of move the region into the right direction?

Zakaria: Let me ask you about stability in Jordan itself, because your country is often seen as a kind of island of stability in a very rough neighbourhood. You have recently had what looked to the outside world like an attempted coup. What happened there and what do you see is the prospect for any instability in the future?

King Abdullah II: Well, again, you know, when we look at crises all over the world, and I think in this day and age, we tend to look at crises as a snapshot without really understanding the journey that actually Jordan, for example, has undertaken over the past several years—regional instability, wars, refugees, and COVID. And we have had to look at many characters that tend to use people’s frustrations and legitimate concerns of challenges that they have in making their lives better, to really push on their own agendas and ambitions. What I think made this so sad that one of the people was my brother, who did it in such an amateurish and really disappointing way. From our point, the intelligence services, as they always do, gather information, and they got to a point where they had legitimate concerns that certain individuals were trying to push my brother’s ambitions for their own agendas, and decided, quite rightly, to nip it in the bud, and quietly. If it had not been for the irresponsible manner of secretly taping conversations with officials from Jordan or leaking videos, you and I would not be having this conversation.

And I believe that I am really proud when members of our family are successful, when they can reach out to society. Now, in this particular case, if somebody has certain ambitions, I can only do so much for them, but I believe from a human point of view, it comes down to sincerity at the end of the day. It is very easy to use peoples’ grievances for personal agendas, but are you sincere in what you are trying to do for your people? And at the end of the day, we all have a responsibility to be able to come up with solutions for the people. And this is not just Jordan-centric, many royal families around the world have these challenges. If you are a member of the Royal Family, you have privileges; you need to respect those privileges, but also there are restrictions. And politics, at the end of the day, is the purview of the Monarch. And so it is just unfortunate, unnecessary, and just created problems that we could have avoided.

Zakaria: One of the people who was part of it was very close to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Do you believe there was a Saudi hand in this?

King Abdullah II: This is being looked at as a domestic issue. We all know that Bassem, who used to work in Jordan, is a senior adviser in Saudi Arabia. He holds Saudi and American passports. We have witnessed external relations on this issue, but, as I said, we are dealing with this as a domestic problem, and, again, knowing Jordan, finger pointing does not help at all. We have enough challenges in the region; we need to move forward. This has always been the Jordanian ethos to look to the future. And I think we are all about mitigating challenges and difficulties, as opposed to adding to them.

Zakaria: Let me ask you, this week, your grandfather was assassinated 70 years ago at the Temple Mount [Al Aqsa Mosque/Al Haram Al Sharif]. Does it feel to you as though in those 70 years, things just remained the same? Do you feel as though things have gotten better? Particularly on the issue, I mean, he was assassinated by Palestinian gunmen. It feels like things haven’t moved that far forward.

King Abdullah II: Well, we are celebrating our centennial, and if you look at the history of our country, with all the shocks—and most of them external—it is just amazing that Jordan is still Jordan, and that reflects, I believe, on the legacy of members of my family, but more important, I think, the steadfastness of the Jordanian people. We do live in a difficult neighbourhood, and you have got to sort of wake up every morning to look at the glass half full. The way King Abdullah looked at regional politics and trying to bring people together is what my father inherited from him, and what I inherited from my father, and my son has inherited from me. So, as difficult as the challenges are, I believe that we can come together. My great grandfather, as you said, was killed on the steps of the [Al Aqsa] mosque in Jerusalem. What we have all been about, always, is looking at Jerusalem as a city that brings Muslims, Christians, and Jews together, and it is just inconceivable to me why we would want anything else. So, my role, my son’s role will continue to be how do we make this a city of hope, a city of peace, and bringing people together, and hopefully that reflects to other policies as we deal with challenges around the Middle East.

Zakaria: Your Majesty, it is always an honour and pleasure to talk to you.

King Abdullah II: Thank you.”

[kindacompetentlawstudent]

Rosie explains law

Hi frens,

So while studying on winter break, I have decided to do something fun. Or well, I think it is fun. I am going to explain some funky fresh law concepts to yall. Because some of this information is just nice to know and it's interesting!

 A DISCLAIMER BEFORE I START: I am a law student at a western, European law school. This means that I get taught concepts in the view of western, european law professors. This might mean that you get taught concepts or examples differently. We can absolutely discuss our differences, but just so that everybody is clear: I do not wish to push my opinion on international matters on you guys, I just really want to show you that international law is interesting and, dare I say: funky.

 So, today class is on: statehood. This concepts asks the question: what is a state? How does something become a state? Why is place A a state and place B not? Let us all learn and discuss today.

 First things first, we cannot start without some nice ✨ documents✨.Today we will primarily use these:

1. The 1934 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. (old as fuck but we still love)

2. The United Nations Charter (bae)

3. The Chagos Advisory Opinion by the International Court of Justice (fun fact: I might be doing an internship here soon)

4. United Nations General Assembly resolutions 67/19 and 1514 (hella spicy because of reasons I will come back too I promise).

 So: what are the main qualifications to become a state? (say, you are on tumblr at 4 am and want to convince people to join your state that focuses on Toto Wolff and Susie Wolff as a powercouple)

Well, article 1 of the Montevideo Convention is quite clear. To become a state, there are four criteria:

1. you have to have a permanent population (this can shift, yes, but there has to be a majority that identifies as your population)

2. you have to have a defined territory (you cannnot just move around and plant a flag and say: "we live here now for two weeks")

3. you have to have a government (notice how it does not say "democratic" or "functioning", we will get back to that)

4. you have to have the capacity to enter into relations with other states (THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE).

 So, seems kinda easy right? Wellll, there are certain complications let's say. I will now explain those, using three examples: Kosovo, Palestine and IS. (please go back to the disclaimer loves).

Example 1: Kosovo.

Kosovo basically fulfills all the qualifications, however there is one little tiny problem. The capacity to enter into relations with other states. This is a crucial element to being a state, because if you cannot enter into relations, you will probably not survive as a modern state. With Kosovo this is a problem, because Serbia does not recognize Kosovo, and so do a bunch of other nations. This makes it very hard for the United Nations to recognize Kosovo as anything but an observer, because if the majority of nations do not recognize the state, the United Nations does not recognize it. This shows how hard it is to fullfill all these conditions in the eyes of every single existing state in the international community.

Example 2: Palestine.

Palestine is….quite the adventure. What makes it a little easier (it is still very very difficult, do not get me wrong) is that there have been discussions in the United Nations general assembly about the status of Israel. This has been discussed in General Assembly Resolution 67/19, about the status of Palestine. Palestine has the same problem as Kosovo, that certain countries do not recognize Palestine as a state, which makes it incredibly difficult for Palestine to function in the international community. Palestine has the status of an observer state, which basically makes it able to project its  opinions into the general assembly, but is not able to vote. In the case of Palestine, this is crucial, because of their involvement with Israel and the Arabic World in committees like DISEC(which deals with disarmament and denuclearization). However, to publicly state that Palestine is a state is something most nations refrain from doing, to prevent conflict.

Example 3: IS (Islamic State)

This one is a little harder, because there is more than one criteria to discuss. The main ones being having a government and a defined territory (let's for argue sake say that entering into relations is already kinda difficult yeah?)

The defined territory is the main point to argue with IS. Seeing as they declared themselves a state in an area captured by war and terror, and more importantly the area that already belongs to another state (mainly Syria), it is hard to be able to fulfill this condition. The territory of IS seems to shift constantly and isn't easily pinned down. The second talking point is the government. As far as we know, IS does not have a recognized government (once again, could be wrong). They do have leaders and a certain system of bureaucracy, but to speak of a government is reaching. This shows that even if you have everything else, not fulfilling one of the conditions can be crucial.

 Who then decides who is a state and who isn't?

In the international community there is a saying: you only obey those rules that you want to obey. This means that certain countries might not recognize certain treaties, or in extreme cases, other states. Who then decides who is a state and who isn't? Short answer: UN. Long answer: all of us and none of us.

See, art. 4 UN Charter states that: "Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of het Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." This basically says: "come join, but follow our rules and do not be at war." This should make states like Kosovo and Palestine able to join the UN, and in the case of Palestine, they sort of did. However, to become a member you have to be approved by both the General Assembly (where all members gather) and the Security Council (France, US, UK, Russia, China). If one of the countries in the Security Council does not recognize you, they can veto your application. Then you're out. If the majority of countries in the General Assemblly do not like you and vote no: you're out. Because diplomacy and history exist, it makes it extremely difficult for new states or territories to become full members of the United Nations. This is the reason both Palestine and the Holy See (fancy schmancy name for the Vatican) are only observer parties.

 In the end it is all just a game of who likes you and who you have pissed off, which makes it glorious, interesting and an absolute pain in the ass.

Hope you guys like this!