Support the Hind Rajab Foundation to get as many of these criminals as possible to justice in any of the countries they happen to visit or be dual citizens of.

We do not forget.

Never again, for anyone.

What kind of question is that?

That the US is going to fall further behind China in green energy technology.

Nice application of the selectorate theory.

It would be somewhat OK if the House was much more powerful relative to the Senate, similar to how the (unelected) Canadian Senate rarely if ever opposes the will of the House.

In the meantime, in Iran, age of consent is 15 13 (Src https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_in_Asia). Too low as well, but not 9 FFS.

It’s so funny how all this is only a problem within a capitalist frame of reference.

Biden had this one chance to get back at Netanyahu for all the humiliations. The Republicans would scream murder but what else could they do to the Democrats? Win the legislature, the executive or the judiciary?

But Biden didn’t. Which means he either is a glutton for punishment and has a kink for humiliation or that Netanyahu is not the one on control here and this has been Biden’s genocide all along.

Yet the kahanists came back and now they’re running the National Security ministry and Netanyahu depends on them.

And North Korea is a Democratic Republic.

Conflating Israel with Jews is antisemitic.

If it had been perpetrated against Israelis you would not be saying this.

Any state department gaslighting to hasbara this?

Lol, fixed it

Narrowing down the options to apartheid/genocide and the abolition of the Jewish character of Israel. In other words killing off the last vestiges of a non-fascist version of Zionism that a “small Israel” could allow.

So, liberal Zionists: which side are you on?

Canada’s population is 40 million. This would add 80ish (edit:) million more people to that. So, it’s not Canada annexing the blue states, it’s the blues states seceding and then annexing Canada to achieve territorial contiguity.

deleted by creator

The definition you insist on is not the only one with consequences. Arguably, in the Trump-Netanyahu era, the legal one might be the one with the least amount of consequences…

It also not the one used for the English Wikipedia. I told you to be careful with words because you were using the legal definition to argue against the scholarly one. Sticking to the legal definition doesn’t make you careful per se. And I’m not sure I understand what “throwing around” is happening here. This is not the Lord’s name to not be taken in vain.

Pew Pew boom boom.

Be careful with the words here. The ICJ is the final decider about one specific definition of genocide. However, there is nothing that says that is the sole valid definition of genocide. In fact:

According to Ernesto Verdeja, associate professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, there are three ways to conceptualise genocide other than the legal definition: in academic social science, in international politics and policy, and in colloquial public usage.

• The academic social science approach does not require proof of intent,[11] and social scientists often define genocide more broadly.[12]
• The international politics and policy definition centres around prevention policy and intervention and may actually mean “large-scale violence against civilians” when used by governments and international organisations.
• Lastly, Verdeja says the way the general public colloquially uses “genocide” is usually “as a stand-in term for the greatest evils”.[11] This is supported by political scientist Kurt Mundorff who highlights how to the general public genocide is “simply mass murder carried out on a grand scale”.[13]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions

Do those cartels want Bukele? Because this is how they get Bukele.