their case was made up entirely. The ruling tells that.
If the case was made up, the court would have thrown it out. Instead it confirmed, that Palestinians are at serious risk of genocide by Israel, which is why it ordered measures to preven genocide.
If you'd listen to the hearing you'd realize that the court is not only seeing serious concerns about the immediate risk for Palestinian rights protected under the genocide convention, but also calls out genocidal rhetoric by Israeli senior officials in particular prime minister Netanyahu, president Herzog and defence minister Gallant.
What you are claiming in regards to the courts ruling is a deliberate lie, and a despicable slander of South Africa and by extension of how you talk about the courts ruling, slander of international order as a whole.
That can be the case for some products. It should not get us to relax in hubris until it is too late to stay in competition.
How is "about two years" more clear? about two years for me subjectively means everything between 20 and 28 month. Do you know how much time that is? about half a year. But for someone else it might mean 22 and 26 month. Or 18 and 30 month.
2002 called. They want their stereotypes back.
China caught up on developing and producing quality products themselves, while many western companies lacked innovation and just payed out dividends instead of investing into the future.
Well it doesn't help argueing, that there would be no money for a wage increase. It was clearly hypocritical.
To add to the absurdity of it, when the leaders of the Bahn announced first that the demand fo the traindrivers is inacceptable as their is no money available, they just had increased their salaries by millions.
Well it was also "aided" by the experience of a friend, who is a french citizen, but living in Germany. When he visited a family member in France, some french teenagers harassed and spit on them, because there was an arab among their group. When he told the people of his group to properly make a scene, they told him not to bother as this is just normal in France. On the same voyage this friend was almost killed on the highway as a french driver tried to get him to steer off the asphalt by breaking in front of him and making moves of steering into him from the side repeatedly.
So within just a few weeks independantly and literally across the world, we experienced numerous occasions of french people being incredibly racist, showing an extreme sense of self entitlement and superiority, while not hesitating from deadly violence. Now at some farmers protest someone was killed and multiple people seriously injured too.
I do not want to claim that this is representative of every french person or person living in France. But it seems to be representative of an underlying and structural problem in franch society and culture. Therefore the positive experience that i replied to, should equally not be expected as a general sentiment in France.
Given that i am from Germany i also want to preemptivel warn everyone, that Germany as a whole is an incredibly racist country and racism has had a huge increase even more in the past few months. In this regard there seems to be many more similiarities between French and Germans than either people like to admit to. Unfortunately these similiarities are all not on the good side of behaviours and cultures.
But this is just gravely incorrect. The Palestinians were heard on the matter. They disagreed. The UN voted for a partitition regardless. Then they were invited in the committee that ‘drew the lines’. But their position was the following (quote from the first article):
Which is the same as your boss asking you for your opinion, only to reject it, if it doesn't align. Moving on with this proposal, showed that from the beginning their was no equal regard for the Palestinians.
If we look at the Background part, we can already see, how the British and zionists approached the whole thing:
In 1937, following a six-month-long Arab General Strike and armed insurrection which aimed to pursue national independence and secure the country from foreign control, the British established the Peel Commission.The Commission concluded that the Mandate had become unworkable, and recommended Partition into an Arab state linked to Transjordan; a small Jewish state; and a mandatory zone. To address problems arising from the presence of national minorities in each area, it suggested a land and population transfer[33] involving the transfer of some 225,000 Arabs living in the envisaged Jewish state and 1,250 Jews living in a future Arab state, a measure deemed compulsory "in the last resort". [...] In a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to "possession of the land as a whole" The same sentiment, that acceptance of partition was a temporary measure beyond which the Palestine would be "redeemed . . in its entirety," was recorded by Ben-Gurion on other occasions, such as at a meeting of the Jewish Agency executive in June 1938, as well as by Chaim Weizmann.
So of course the Arabs would not agree. Forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians was already part of this plan from the beginning. And to think of the larger context. The Arab nations were looking to free themselves from colonial rule, but as the British would slowly loose power, another European people should sweep in, right at the heart of the region?
For the context of the first Israel-Arab war you need to also put in between the fact, that with the end of the mandate Israel declared itself as a state and only then the Arab nations declared war. Imagine today China would funnel hundreds of thousands of people into say Belgium, then declare a new state there and take Brussels under control. Would the other EU countries just stand by?
I believe that a one state solution takes a much longer path, but ultimately is the only way, to really get peace in the area and move past the conflict. If you have two states, either side can give rise to power of war hawks. In this regard it would be very much like the status now. If you have two states, it can always be used to ignite tensions and destablize the region, whenever it is desired by other geopolitical players, as is the case currently too. Giving either side the full control over the area, will just lead to it trying to displace or exterminate the other. Having two seperate states, will always mean that whatever injustice is unresolved or commited in the future will be difficult to legally solve, as either side would not give proper access to courts of the other. If a two state solutions was to be enforced now, Israel would not be willing to make any concessions and unless the West would force them in a war to do so, i don't see them currently being willing to leave a single illegal settlement. The last Israel political leader who wanted to move towards a diplomatic solution, Jitzak Rabin, was depicted as Hitler and murdered, for saying Israel needs to be able to make compromises to ever achieve peace. Since Israel is currently in a position of power, they will simply not be willing to negotiate anything towards a two state solution, and i doubt the Palestinians to accept it, as it would always be deominated by Israel.
I believe that a one state solution ultimately is the only way, because it is the only context in which everyone can be given an actually fair chance and political participation, that could form the justice necessary to achieve acceptance.
Finally about the religious extremists, I think that these will continue to be huge destabilizing factor, as the religious extremism is the vehicle of political extremism. In reestablishing a mandate it would be possible to seek out and bring everyone to justice, who has been commiting war crimes or crimes against humanity. By holding violent Israeli and Palestinian criminals accountable these dangerous elements can be removed from both societies, but more importantly it can create a symbol of justice returning to the region.
This is brilliant.
I found the Danes to be direct but nice.
French on the other hand can be nice on the front, and then stab you in the back. Also i have made the experience that many of them are increadibly racist and when they travel assume a colonial attitude. I'll never travel again with French people for that matter.
I mean to this question the answer is very simple on one side and very complicated on the other.
On the one side every human, every group of human, be it by ethnic, religious, cultural or other metric has the right to live in safety, dignity and with the ability to self develop and participate politically.
If there was a land, where any such group is settled as significant majority, they deserve to have sovereignity over their affairs, be it in a nation state or a federal state.
Founding todays Israel in the way it was founded. Without hearing the Palestinians on the matter and with the Nakba was a grave mistake. It is the root of the subsequent violence and injustice that we still see today. I believe that having a longer UN mandate, maybe taken from the British and instead given to an international coalition, would have helped in finding a diplomatic solution that could have resulted in one nation state that grants the aforementioned rights equally to the people, irrespective of their religion or ethnicity.
Given that today there is about 7 Million Palestinians and about 7 Million Israeli Jews in the area i would see a historic chance to put the area back under UN control and work towards forming a new state for everyone currently living in the area. Such a process would take decades though.
Instead of creating a nation where one group has the majority over the other, creating a state where all groups have about the same power and are forced to work together diplomatically could have been the greatest story of integration in history. I believe that it still can be, if the world decides to think in terms of working together, instead of sowing division again. However there we are back to the geopolitical goals of the global player. In so far i also see it as a great test of humanity, if we manage to solve global issues together again.
Last thought, knowing it goes beyond your question: The reason why i believe in a one state solution is, that a two state solution would on the one hand split the Palestinian state in two parts, which is pracitically impossible to govern or on the other hand deny one side access either to the sea or the Jordan. The sea is crucial for trade and development, as every landlocked country in the world can attest to. The Jordan is crucial for the water supply in this otherwise arid region. Any way to split the land between two nations will disadvantage the other on either of these key ressources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel#Intra-Jewish_racism:_Racism_between_Jews
I cannot judge if they were tricked into migrating, but they were and are subject to discrimination in todays Israel.
I think this is important to note in the discussion, where from westeren countries the current state of Israel is often painted as the only and therefore righteous way, to grant jewish people sovereignity. When seeing the origin of the current state of Israel in the context of european and american antisemitism, nationalism and post-colonialism it becomes more clear, that the underlying motives were not to genuinly prevent further anti-semitism and it did not arise from a genuine care for the jewish people.
So the ethnic discrimination inside Israel, already starting from the beginning, is an indicator for colonial motivations in establishing a state run predominantly by Europeans in the heart of the Middle East and in control of one of the holiest sites of all abrahamic religions. In terms of geopolitics Israel has been very useful to the West, to destabilize and divide the Middle East, and in the competition of reordering the world after WW2 it must have been an important project, to prevent the emergence of an Arab power bloc that could have been more powerful than the EU is today.
When looking at the way that still anti-zionism or even just general criticism of Israel is shunned as being anti-semitic in Germany, it is important to see it as the deflection that it is. The goal of this is to prevent a discussion about the actions of Israel and the current way it conducts itself. This is not to say, that there is no anti-semitism amongst anti-zionists, or also that some are merely using anti-zionism as a vehicle for anti-semitism. There is certainly both. But in Germany for the past month many jews were shunned for criticising Israel. When looking at the historical context, this conduct of German government and mainstream society becomes even more absurd.
I meant in the sense, that if you had to install a new OS on a device, doing a beginner friendly linux distro is easier than bypassing TPM requirements and then dealing with the fallout of that in Windows 11.
I trust you not to ask your aunt to install an OS by herself.
Are they vulnerable though, if they already exclude it at the user input?
I yet have to learn SQL and is there a way to allow passwords with '); DROP TABLE... without being vulnerable to an injection?
nevermind i googled it, and there various ways to do so
It is not my intend to cherrypick. The notion of "islamic rule" by itself could create the idea that islam is monocausal in this, because western history education generally lacks in covering the Ottoman empire, or anything that isn't eurocentric. In school i learned almost nothing about the Ottoman empire, the Mauretanian empire, Persia, China or other important empires in global history aside from the notion of "In those years they lead conquest into Europe and in those years they were kicked out again. And in these other years Europeans were there and colonized."
Meanwhile the ruling class in Israel is predominantly of european descent. So the fair idea of the Mizrahi and Sephardi to have a state with a strong enough jewish population to enjoy and protect equal rights for them was still taken over and led to their discrimination by the later european settlers, who enjoyed stronger support from the european countries and US.
You're welcome. It should be added that there is a right of a state to defend itself from military agression. So of course Israel does have the right to defend itself from Hamas or other attacks on its people. This is relevant in the scope of conflicting rights, as Hamas has no right to attack civillians.
So this is not what the "state x has a right to exist" argument is about. It is used and needed to justify the continued denial of the rights of the Palestinians.
It remains an argument of might makes right. Imagine the US would say that the native Americans wanting their land back would be an attack on the US right to existence.
That sounds a hell lot more complicated than installing a linux distro like mint or ubuntu.
90 weeks is more like 20 month and i could calculate that off of my head by knowing that a year has 52 weeks. I would have struggled more with days.
You could make this criticism about any date metric that it gets more or less easy to translate into a different metric.
Weeks are perfectly fine and most commonly used in the business context.
How is that supposed to look?
How do you differentiate legit free speech, from concerted propaganda efforts? Especially as information is very volatile nowadays. How do you mark false information, without creating systems abused to opress investigative exposures and whistle blowers?
Russia and China dont need to protect free speech, press and information.