Wonder why this made the frontpage when other political articles die.
Has the rules around political non technical articles changed? Can we get an Epstein thread for the frontpage sometime this week?
replies(6):
Has the rules around political non technical articles changed? Can we get an Epstein thread for the frontpage sometime this week?
Previously, it’s been activists and claims that this might be genocide. I haven’t read the report yet. But I will, and I intend to leave my mind open as to whether this raises the profile of this war in my mind relative to domestic issues.
Wait, you know people who were killed by Hamas? You can’t even pretend to be impartial.
Courts have ruled it is. The world has ruled it is. You can skirm all you want, in 6 months you'll say you always thought it was a genocide. Mark my words.
Edit0:Rulings are not only the final decision, feel free to chat with a lawyer
What more do you need? Indeed, there hasn't been a final ruling yet. What a gotcha!
Edit1: Also, please understand that the distinction you are pointing to is just saying : 1. Palestinians seemingly are being genocided 2. Israel has a responsibility not to ebact acts of genocide on the palestinians 3. Israel keeps failing at this goal and has even has it's leaders express genocidal intent.
Which is to say everything BUT the final ruling - that Israel has committed genocide - as final ruling can't be arrived to expeditedly even in the face of overwhelming evidence
The plausibility is that the Palestinians have a right to be protected from Genocide.
Which is why the court is hearing the case.
There was no decision on the plausibility of Israel infringing on that right, which is what you incorrectly make out of it.
To quote: "It did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible".
Which is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.