> Very recently as in 'in the UN assembly resolution authorizing the creation of Israel' (1947) or the 1985 basic law etc.
You are correct. I'm sorry. I was misremembering the news from when "Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People" [1] was passed in 2018. My bad, I can no longer edit my post though. So apparently "Jewish ethnic homeland in Palestine", "Jewish state" and "Jewish nation-state" mean different things and have different connotations. The latter being the recent and most controversial one.
for people that want to check the resolution referenced is UNGA181.[2]
Turns out the Palestinian opposition to the term is because they see it as giving up on their right of return (given to them by UNGA194 [3] )
That was only very recently codified and was very controversial inside and outside of israel.
> They use it in very specific circumstances
I'm sorry but that's just incorrect, it's been used much more broadly.
for example according to Noam Chomsky:
"Actually, the locus classicus, the best formulation of this, was by an ambassador to the United Nations, Abba Eban, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations.... He advised the American Jewish community that they had two tasks to perform. One task was to show that criticism of the policy, what he called anti-Zionism—that means actually criticisms of the policy of the state of Israel—were anti-Semitism. That's the first task. Second task, if the criticism was made by Jews, their task was to show that it's neurotic self-hatred, needs psychiatric treatment. Then he gave two examples of the latter category. One was I. F. Stone. The other was me. So, we have to be treated for our psychiatric disorders, and non-Jews have to be condemned for anti-Semitism, if they're critical of the state of Israel. That's understandable why Israeli propaganda would take this position. I don’t particularly blame Abba Eban for doing what ambassadors are sometimes supposed to do. But we ought to understand that there is no sensible charge. No sensible charge. There's nothing to respond to. It's not a form of anti-Semitism. It's simply criticism of the criminal actions of a state, period"
on the subject of using accusations of anti-Semitism to stifle political debate inside the labour party, I'd recommend watching "the lobby" episode 3 [1]. Ironically the documentary itself was accused of antisemitism but Ofcom ruled against it. [2]
> Taliban refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his central role in 9/11 terrorism
If we put in mind what we know post hoc about the torture and inhumane interrogation techniques used in both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, wouldn't you agree that it's reasonable to assume that there was a high risk of torture?
and isn't torture a well-accepted reason to block extradition.
In fact, let's take it even a step further in light of the fabrication of evidence seen in Iraq. The general atmosphere of hate at the time. not to mention that we now know that bin Laden not only was not tried but was thrown in a bag with the fish. How can we be so sure that he would have had received a fair trial? How would you even find an unbiased jury[1]?
Do we deem it ok to extradite someone to a place with a high risk of torture and unfair trial?
[1] - this is a rhetorical question but I'm actually curious how would one find such a jury that hasn't already made its mind?
What's kinda creepy in the Tunisian situation, is the amount of false information being spread on social media, especially Facebook.
For example, there are several posts of a screenshot of an aljazeera post, next to a not fully loaded screenshot of Blinken's twitter claiming that aljazeera mistranslated the tweet.
The narrative they are trying to push is that aljazeera is biased and therefore the president was justified in ordering its office raided.
Had the tweet's page been allowed to fully load, it would have shown that Blinken's tweet was part of a thread where the second tweet matches what Aljazeera said.
Even creepier, I saw that one of my acquaintances had shared one such post. I commented to inform them of the situation and linking the official tweet thread.
My comment got removed for "spam" (I only posted exactly one comment, once) and there was no option to appeal the removal. I contacted her through private channels and she claims she didn't even see the comment. (I presume the automated systems saw that tweet's link was being posted a lot??)
So not only is the false information kept up but attempts
to correct it through discussion are automatically removed.
I feel like I have a wrong model of how things work.
I'm thinking that for each virus there is a chance that it will infect a cell. The higher the viral load, the higher the number of chances that you will get infected.
a lower number of droplets -> lower viral load -> less chance to be infected.
- If using X reduces the probability of contracting P. then X protects you from X. right?
- If a mask prevents you from touching your face and that reduces the probability of contracting the disease. Then masks do indeed protect you.
> I wouldn't want my doctor to only wear a mask.
I feel that this is a strawman.
- - -
but even if we ignore the face-touching, I don't understand how is it possible for masks to make things worse.
if we were talking about bacteria, then yes the bacteria can fester there.
but if the virus is carried by droplets, and a part of these droplets end up on the mask instead of in your nose.
then surely that would reduce the probability of being infected right?
You are correct. I'm sorry. I was misremembering the news from when "Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People" [1] was passed in 2018. My bad, I can no longer edit my post though. So apparently "Jewish ethnic homeland in Palestine", "Jewish state" and "Jewish nation-state" mean different things and have different connotations. The latter being the recent and most controversial one.
for people that want to check the resolution referenced is UNGA181.[2]
Turns out the Palestinian opposition to the term is because they see it as giving up on their right of return (given to them by UNGA194 [3] )
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Natio...
[2] - https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/res181.asp