"An elderly American couple finds themselves babysitting their grandchildren in a small town in Italy, while the parents are temporarily located there. The grandchildren are friends with local Italian children, who all enjoy playing in the central piazza.
So, there the American grandparents are, allowing their grandchildren to run free with little restriction. Accustomed to “free play,” they don’t stand in the way of their grandchildren messing about, even if they fall down and lightly hurt themselves.
The Italian grandparents, on the other hand, are on it. Not only are their grandkids not allowed for a moment out of their sight, but any hurts that befall them are conscientiously dealt with. The child is picked up and brushed off in an instant.
This illustrates the differences in ambiguity tolerance between Americans and Italians.
In general, Americans have higher ambiguity tolerance.
Safe versus dangerous and clean versus dirty are two distinctions that an Italian child learns first during primary socialization.
The American grandparents see nothing to worry about with the dirt and danger in the piazza. In fact, they see no dirt or danger there, whatsoever."
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
That's my world turned upside down. I've been working off an interpretation gleaned from PB no less maybe even OGH Jr (please correct me @rcs1000) that the saying meant that because the exception is so abnormal as to be remarked upon that it shows in general the rule holds.
I suppose sayings change. It irritates me greatly that the accepted meaning of "carrot and stick" is now to be harsh or lenient whereas I grew up thinking it meant if you suggest something desirable in front of someone they will move towards that position (without ever reaching it).
Yes, my unserstanding is that of Carynx - 'proves' in this case pretty much means 'disprove'.
I don't think it's as strong as disprove, but it's certainly 'tests' - 'puts under strain'.
Indeed: that's why a "proving ground" is a "testing ground". You test the thing, and if it passes you've proved it fit for purpose.
Test
Both the Norwegian and Danish use the word 'prøve' which means to test or examine. I assume that, or a common antecedent, is the derviation of the word in English.
"An elderly American couple finds themselves babysitting their grandchildren in a small town in Italy, while the parents are temporarily located there. The grandchildren are friends with local Italian children, who all enjoy playing in the central piazza.
So, there the American grandparents are, allowing their grandchildren to run free with little restriction. Accustomed to “free play,” they don’t stand in the way of their grandchildren messing about, even if they fall down and lightly hurt themselves.
The Italian grandparents, on the other hand, are on it. Not only are their grandkids not allowed for a moment out of their sight, but any hurts that befall them are conscientiously dealt with. The child is picked up and brushed off in an instant.
This illustrates the differences in ambiguity tolerance between Americans and Italians.
In general, Americans have higher ambiguity tolerance.
Safe versus dangerous and clean versus dirty are two distinctions that an Italian child learns first during primary socialization.
The American grandparents see nothing to worry about with the dirt and danger in the piazza. In fact, they see no dirt or danger there, whatsoever."
Question - are these findings based upon multiple grandparent sightings, over a period; or something less?
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
That's my world turned upside down. I've been working off an interpretation gleaned from PB no less maybe even OGH Jr (please correct me @rcs1000) that the saying meant that because the exception is so abnormal as to be remarked upon that it shows in general the rule holds.
I suppose sayings change. It irritates me greatly that the accepted meaning of "carrot and stick" is now to be harsh or lenient whereas I grew up thinking it meant if you suggest something desirable in front of someone they will move towards that position (without ever reaching it).
Yes, my unserstanding is that of Carynx - 'proves' in this case pretty much means 'disprove'.
I don't think it's as strong as disprove, but it's certainly 'tests' - 'puts under strain'.
Indeed: that's why a "proving ground" is a "testing ground". You test the thing, and if it passes you've proved it fit for purpose.
Test
Both the Norwegian and Danish use the word 'prøve' which means to test or examine. I assume that, or a common antecedent, is the derviation of the word in English.
"An elderly American couple finds themselves babysitting their grandchildren in a small town in Italy, while the parents are temporarily located there. The grandchildren are friends with local Italian children, who all enjoy playing in the central piazza.
So, there the American grandparents are, allowing their grandchildren to run free with little restriction. Accustomed to “free play,” they don’t stand in the way of their grandchildren messing about, even if they fall down and lightly hurt themselves.
The Italian grandparents, on the other hand, are on it. Not only are their grandkids not allowed for a moment out of their sight, but any hurts that befall them are conscientiously dealt with. The child is picked up and brushed off in an instant.
This illustrates the differences in ambiguity tolerance between Americans and Italians.
In general, Americans have higher ambiguity tolerance.
Safe versus dangerous and clean versus dirty are two distinctions that an Italian child learns first during primary socialization.
The American grandparents see nothing to worry about with the dirt and danger in the piazza. In fact, they see no dirt or danger there, whatsoever."
This is a really useful thread header. I agree with a lot of it, but I think the overall thrust is wrong. Understandably the topic is quite emotionally loaded and the header seems to be coming from a desire to define terrorism based on whether it is justified/unjustified or to put it in simpler terms, right or wrong. To me, this question is an orthogonal one (and a hard one to answer a lot of the time) to a definitional question of what terrorism is. In my view it is important to focus on the word "terror" - terrorism should be seen as a form of psychological warfare, designed to achieve specific political goals through acts of violence. The IRA's goal was to make the British public question the British state's involvement in Ireland. Al Qaeda's goal was to make the West disengage from the Middle East. Hamas's goal is to make the Israeli public question their state's actions in Gaza and the West Bank, and to inflame Arab opinion against Israel to keep the issue on the front page and prevent Arab states from concluding peace deals with Israel that don't address the Palestinians' concerns. Terrorism tends to be carried out by non state actors because it is a form of asymmetrical warfare that tends to be carried out by the weaker partner in the conflict. The stronger partner has other means at their disposal. Israeli attacks on Gaza are therefore not terrorism. Similarly, the bombing of Hamburg or Hiroshima are not terrorism. Whether they are war crimes is a different issue. Whether any of these things are right or wrong is a third question altogether, and one I'm always surprised at how many people feel themselves qualified to answer. In many conflicts it's hard to divide the two sides into good guys and bad guys. Rather than seeking elusive moral clarity we should focus our efforts on helping both sides to de-escalate and find a lasting peace that removes the underlying causes of the conflict.
While in many conflicts it is surprisingly easy to divide the two sides into good guys and bad guys. plus in those situations the "source of the conflict" is the fact that the bad guys want conflict. Eg Ukraine was at peace, before Russia invaded. Eg Israel had stopped occupying Gaza and was helping the Palestinians build the Port of Gaza to aid their development before Hamas took over. We can divide some conflicts by saying democratic Ukraine good, authoritarian Russia bad. Similarly democratic Israel good, Islamofascist Hamas bad.
Rather than seeking elusive "de-escalation" in those situations, we should be seeking to aid victory for our allies who are good over those who would do them harm and in victory they can maybe have a lasting peace.
Israel had stopped occupying Gaza, but has been continuing to blockade it. The Netanyahu government has had no interest in Gaza being able to function anything like a normal state, and it was past Israeli administrations that supported Hamas to destabilise the PLO. Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and to build settlements on occupied territory in contravention of international law. Israel continues to discriminate against Arab Israelis and non-citizen Palestinians. And Israeli democracy has been deteriorating under Bibi!
Hamas is, in part, a consequence of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. This is not to condone Hamas's actions, but it is moral naivety not to recognise this context. It is the official policy of the UK government and that of most of our allies that we do not condone Israel's actions in Palestine, that we recognise continued settlement building as being contrary to international law and contrary to hopes for a lasting peace.
Except the facts don't back up that whatsoever. Netanyahu wasn't even in power when Hamas took over Gaza, Ehud Olmert was.
Israel wasn't blockading Gaza prior to the rise of Hamas, quite the opposite. From 2005 to 2007 (when Hamas took over) Israel was not only not blockading Gaza, they were encouraging the development of the Port of Gaza to help Gaza get developed.
Unfortunately then Hamas took over, so the blockade became necessary and was instituted by Olmert in a reversal of his and Sharon's prior plans to encourage the development of Gaza without an Israeli occupation.
If anything Netanyahu is a response to Hamas rather than the other way around, and even then he's only barely been able to be elected even with Hamas.
You appear to have misread what I wrote. I said, "it was past Israeli administrations that supported Hamas to destabilise the PLO". I didn't say it was Bibi.
You, as usual, completely skip over the continued settlement building in the West Bank.
How far past are you going? Decades before it was known what Hamas was or would become?
Prior to Bibi, Sharon and Olmert were trying to disengage from Gaza and encourage development in Gaza without an Israeli occupation. Prior to that there was a sustained period of trying to work with the PLO and Arafat, until Arafat rejected peace.
Israel like almost all democratic nations wants peace and has voted for peaceful regimes time and again, they've agreed peace with Egypt and other former enemies. If only there was a Palestinian leadership that was equal to them. Its not Israel keeping Palestinians down, its Hamas and Palestinian leadership over decades.
As for continued settlement building, I've addressed it repeatedly. Its not ideal, but considering that the Palestinians have rejected the proposed borders and the Camp David process says that final borders are up for "negotiations", Israel is entirely in its rights to respond to suicide bombers etc being sent into its territory to move the border one way by instead using settlements to put pressure on to move it the other way.
Want to stop settlements? Agree a peace treaty with a fixed border, culminate the negotiations.
Incidentally Israel has a history of respecting negotiations once an agreement is made and either dismantling or handing over settlements in response, see what happened in Sinai, Sharm el Sheikh etc.
Israel has been in military occupation of the West Bank since 1967. Yes, it is Israel keeping Palestinians down.
When you say Israel is entirely in its rights to move the border one way or the other, could you lay out which rights those are? Are these rights written down somewhere? That’s not what international law says. We don’t say Russia is within their rights to move the border one way or the other. We didn’t say Iraq was. Settlements on occupied territory are illegal under international law. That is what the UN says. That is what the US says. That is what the UK says.
The UN is wrong, and you're categorically wrong about what the US says and what international law does too.
Israel gained Gaza and the West Bank from Egypt and Jordan in a defensive war, just as Germany lost land in WWII. Egypt relinquished its claim on Gaza in the Egypt/Israel peace treaty following the Camp David Accords in the 1970s.
The Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO of 1993 quite explicitly do not define a border between Israel and a potential future Palestinian state. The 1967 border is explicitly not the border between Israel and a potential future Palestinian state.
The PLO agreed in the Oslo Accords that the future border is subject to future negotiations.
Unless you think the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Accords are not international law, they matter far more than any vote by the UN.
The US as the primary facilitator of peace talks at both Camp David under Jimmy Carter and throughout decades of peace processes including the Oslo Accords under Bill Clinton respects that the border is an issue for future negotiations. It does not prejudge those negotiations.
The PLO has tried to back its negotiators up by sending suicide bombers into Israel to pressure Israel into giving up more land. I respect sending builders and construction crews in more than suicide bombers.
And yet the existence of Israel is based on UN resolutions not the Camp David or Oslo Agreements. And when Israel wanted to invade Lebanon they cited UN resolutions for justification not the Camp David or Oslo Agreements.
So even Israel apparently doesn't agree with you.
When talking about UN Resolution its important to be clear, do you mean UNSC Resolutions, which are quasi-law, or UNGA Resolutions? Which are definitively not.
The existence of Israel is not simply because of the UN Resolutions at the time because Israel accepted the UN Resolution at the time but Egypt and Transjordan did not and invaded seeking to wipe out Israel - and succeeding in wiping out the land assigned to the Palestinians. Egypt and Transjordan did that, not Israel, not the UN.
Egypt subsequently made peace with Israel, a peace the UNGA rejected, but the UNGA is not law.
Please specify any UNSC Resolution made after the Oslo Accords that reject the Oslo Accords principle that the borders are a matter for future negotiations? I am not aware of any. The Oslo process is international law, whether you like it or not is immaterial.
Its not a matter of whether I like it. It is a matter of whether or not Israel thinks it is law. And given they launched an invasion of another country based on those resolutions (or rather on Labanon's claimed breach of them) it appears you are disagreeing with Israel as well as most of the rest of the world as well. Of course if you are an international law expert then maybe you might have a point and you can tell Israel they were wrong. But we all know you are not and Israel would probably tell you excatly where to stick your opinions.
I am far too polite to do so.
Security Council resolutions, not General Assembly ones.
You are aware of the difference aren't you? Israel sure is, as is almost everyone else.
Indeed. And so should Israel be.
They are in breach of a whole series of Security Council resolutions including 446
The Security Council
Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.
The Fourth Geneva Convention - to which Israel is a sigantory - states that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies"
This is just one of a whole raft of Security Council Resolutions that Israel has ignored, whilst at the same time using other Security Council resolutions as justification for invading neighbouring countries.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
That's my world turned upside down. I've been working off an interpretation gleaned from PB no less maybe even OGH Jr (please correct me @rcs1000) that the saying meant that because the exception is so abnormal as to be remarked upon that it shows in general the rule holds.
I suppose sayings change. It irritates me greatly that the accepted meaning of "carrot and stick" is now to be harsh or lenient whereas I grew up thinking it meant if you suggest something desirable in front of someone they will move towards that position (without ever reaching it).
Yes, my unserstanding is that of Carynx - 'proves' in this case pretty much means 'disprove'.
I don't think it's as strong as disprove, but it's certainly 'tests' - 'puts under strain'.
Indeed: that's why a "proving ground" is a "testing ground". You test the thing, and if it passes you've proved it fit for purpose.
Test
Both the Norwegian and Danish use the word 'prøve' which means to test or examine. I assume that, or a common antecedent, is the derviation of the word in English.
I'm sure that is a 100% proof fact.
I wasn't intedning it as a proof (in either sense). just pointing out one of the possible derivations of the word. Having leant Norwegian I am interested in looking at what English words derive from the Scadinavians and what come from the Normans/French.
Looking into it further itappears that Low German also has the word with the same meaning as the Danish and Norwegian.
ABC News - Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources
Meadows said Trump was "dishonest" on election night, according to sources.
Former President Donald Trump's final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith's team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.
According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being "dishonest" with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in. . . .
They should have gone straight for the visceral emotional appeal
A sequence of soaring, sublime shots of places like Ortygia, and Venice and Barcelona and the Dolomites and the Matterhorn, and the Hebrides - and magnificent cathedrals like Durham and Milan and Seville and Chartres and York - and cosy English pubs and delightful Parisian bistros and beer halls in Bavaria and tavernas under the plane tree in the Zagoriou mountains - with a sonorous voice over saying THIS, THIS IS YOUR HOME, EUROPE IS YOUR HOME, THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND CIVILISED PLACE ON EARTH - why wouid you leave such a home?? Stay and defend it! Celebrate it! You are the luckiest person in the world: a EUROPEAN
That would have won by a canter
I can't believe you've just written this, because it's exactly what I've been saying since 2016. During the campaign I kept waiting for the referendum equivalent of a party political broadcast that was going to feature all the magnificent aspects of European culture, and it never happened. All we got instead was a relentless stream of negative reasons to vote Remain.
Wow - the Mosque Keir Starmer visited in South Wales is *absolutely furious* with him and have said the images and message he posted about the visit ‘gravely misrepresented congregants and the nature of his visit’
They apologise for hosting the visit and accuse Starmer of bringing them into disrepute.
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
That's my world turned upside down. I've been working off an interpretation gleaned from PB no less maybe even OGH Jr (please correct me @rcs1000) that the saying meant that because the exception is so abnormal as to be remarked upon that it shows in general the rule holds.
I suppose sayings change. It irritates me greatly that the accepted meaning of "carrot and stick" is now to be harsh or lenient whereas I grew up thinking it meant if you suggest something desirable in front of someone they will move towards that position (without ever reaching it).
Yes, my unserstanding is that of Carynx - 'proves' in this case pretty much means 'disprove'.
I don't think it's as strong as disprove, but it's certainly 'tests' - 'puts under strain'.
Indeed: that's why a "proving ground" is a "testing ground". You test the thing, and if it passes you've proved it fit for purpose.
Test
Both the Norwegian and Danish use the word 'prøve' which means to test or examine. I assume that, or a common antecedent, is the derviation of the word in English.
I'm sure that is a 100% proof fact.
I wasn't intedning it as a proof (in either sense). just pointing out one of the possible derivations of the word. Having leant Norwegian I am interested in looking at what English words derive from the Scadinavians and what come from the Normans/French.
Looking into it further itappears that Low German also has the word with the same meaning as the Danish and Norwegian.
Sorry, I was just trying to make a (bad) joke in extending the usage rather than comment on the veracity or otherwise of the derivation.
100% proof means the alcohol content of a substance can be tested by the virtue of being able to set it on fire, so it is another use of 'prove' as meaning 'test'.
[Edit: Of course, it isn't a great test, as the vapour pressure depends on the ambient temperature]
@habibi_uk 'The Bradford imam Shahid Ali's Middle East Peace Plan is quite simple. Muslim armies must invade Israel. It is their duty. The "command of jihad".
Not sure the mass transportation of Jews won't be seen as an ignoble measure.
Israel is almost exactly the same size as Wales. I know this because a friend once looked at the board for a wargame of the Six Days war, and said, looks about the size of Wales. And he was right.
Yep,
Wales = 21,218 sq. km. (8,192 sq. miles) Israel = 20,770 sq. km. (8,019 sq. miles), on its 1967 borders.
Excuse me, were you not paying attention? Our expert on international law, Bart, has explained that the 1967 borders don’t apply.
Does that mean we have to give them a few counties of England too, or would Scotland suffice?
Bart argues that the Oslo accords were willing to discuss the border, ergo the current border does not exist. The Good Friday Agreement says we’re willing to discuss the border in Ireland, ergo the current UK border doesn’t exist either.
Except the status quo is that there is a current border in Ireland, and there's not one in Israel.
Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border.
Israel and Egypt and Jordan had defined borders, but Egypt and Jordan have relinquished the land they lost in a defensive war that Israel won. Egypt recognised that by peace treaty, Jordan did not but has relinquished their claim anyway.
So a hypothetical potential future Palestinian state may emerge, out of land Egypt and Jordan used to own, but there is not one today nor is there any border today.
To quote Prof Julius Stone: Israel's presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.
"Ireland and the United Kingdom have a defined border."
It overlaps, in nationality of the inhabitants, and in EU status. That's not a simple border, but a very partial one.
So you can throw that right out as an argument.
Yes but that overlap is accepted and defined, so no we can't.
There is no defined border with regards to Israel/Palestine. There can't be, since there never was a Palestine and Egypt and Jordan gave the land up to Israel, not Palestine.
Palestine declared independence in 1988 (after Jordan and Egypt gave up their claims to the land), and 138 out of 193 UN members currently recognise it.
Which is utterly irrelevant since the UN is not a democracy, and the 138 members primarily includes nations which are not proper democracies either.
The UNSC does not recognise it, nor does the UK, USA or almost all of the democratic world either.
India recognises it, so does Sweden. Not exactly dictatorships.
No, they're the exceptions that prove the rule.
The rest of the democratic world does not, and as far as the UN goes its only the UNSC that is relevant, not the UNGA, and the UNSC does not recognise it so that's the end of the matter.
Using the expression "they're the exceptions that prove the rule" is discrediting your argument. Because it means the opposite of what you think it means. 'Prove' is in the meaning of 'test', and in the context of the expression, it means 'test and find wanting'. The common modern interpretation, which you are following, is so much self-contradictory nonsense.
That's my world turned upside down. I've been working off an interpretation gleaned from PB no less maybe even OGH Jr (please correct me @rcs1000) that the saying meant that because the exception is so abnormal as to be remarked upon that it shows in general the rule holds.
I suppose sayings change. It irritates me greatly that the accepted meaning of "carrot and stick" is now to be harsh or lenient whereas I grew up thinking it meant if you suggest something desirable in front of someone they will move towards that position (without ever reaching it).
Yes, my unserstanding is that of Carynx - 'proves' in this case pretty much means 'disprove'.
I don't think it's as strong as disprove, but it's certainly 'tests' - 'puts under strain'.
Indeed: that's why a "proving ground" is a "testing ground". You test the thing, and if it passes you've proved it fit for purpose.
Test
Both the Norwegian and Danish use the word 'prøve' which means to test or examine. I assume that, or a common antecedent, is the derviation of the word in English.
I'm sure that is a 100% proof fact.
I wasn't intedning it as a proof (in either sense). just pointing out one of the possible derivations of the word. Having leant Norwegian I am interested in looking at what English words derive from the Scadinavians and what come from the Normans/French.
Looking into it further itappears that Low German also has the word with the same meaning as the Danish and Norwegian.
Sorry, I was just trying to make a (bad) joke in extending the usage rather than comment on the veracity or otherwise of the derivation.
100% proof means the alcohol content of a substance can be tested by the virtue of being able to set it on fire, so it is another use of 'prove' as meaning 'test'.
Cheers. I wasn't sure if my meaning was clear either. I don't think these meaning derivations are generally as clear as people like to make out even if the derivation of the word itself is clear. And in this case it is even more confused with there being at least 4 different possible routes it could have taken into English (the French word prueve is another route)
Though I did find out this evening that the word 'Probe' apparently has the same derivation which adds weight to the 'test' interpretation.
Wow - the Mosque Keir Starmer visited in South Wales is *absolutely furious* with him and have said the images and message he posted about the visit ‘gravely misrepresented congregants and the nature of his visit’
They apologise for hosting the visit and accuse Starmer of bringing them into disrepute.
Keir went to South Wales? It doesn't sound like his kind of place, tbh. It has - horrors - working class people in it. Did he get lost?
This is a really useful thread header. I agree with a lot of it, but I think the overall thrust is wrong. Understandably the topic is quite emotionally loaded and the header seems to be coming from a desire to define terrorism based on whether it is justified/unjustified or to put it in simpler terms, right or wrong. To me, this question is an orthogonal one (and a hard one to answer a lot of the time) to a definitional question of what terrorism is. In my view it is important to focus on the word "terror" - terrorism should be seen as a form of psychological warfare, designed to achieve specific political goals through acts of violence. The IRA's goal was to make the British public question the British state's involvement in Ireland. Al Qaeda's goal was to make the West disengage from the Middle East. Hamas's goal is to make the Israeli public question their state's actions in Gaza and the West Bank, and to inflame Arab opinion against Israel to keep the issue on the front page and prevent Arab states from concluding peace deals with Israel that don't address the Palestinians' concerns. Terrorism tends to be carried out by non state actors because it is a form of asymmetrical warfare that tends to be carried out by the weaker partner in the conflict. The stronger partner has other means at their disposal. Israeli attacks on Gaza are therefore not terrorism. Similarly, the bombing of Hamburg or Hiroshima are not terrorism. Whether they are war crimes is a different issue. Whether any of these things are right or wrong is a third question altogether, and one I'm always surprised at how many people feel themselves qualified to answer. In many conflicts it's hard to divide the two sides into good guys and bad guys. Rather than seeking elusive moral clarity we should focus our efforts on helping both sides to de-escalate and find a lasting peace that removes the underlying causes of the conflict.
While in many conflicts it is surprisingly easy to divide the two sides into good guys and bad guys. plus in those situations the "source of the conflict" is the fact that the bad guys want conflict. Eg Ukraine was at peace, before Russia invaded. Eg Israel had stopped occupying Gaza and was helping the Palestinians build the Port of Gaza to aid their development before Hamas took over. We can divide some conflicts by saying democratic Ukraine good, authoritarian Russia bad. Similarly democratic Israel good, Islamofascist Hamas bad.
Rather than seeking elusive "de-escalation" in those situations, we should be seeking to aid victory for our allies who are good over those who would do them harm and in victory they can maybe have a lasting peace.
Israel had stopped occupying Gaza, but has been continuing to blockade it. The Netanyahu government has had no interest in Gaza being able to function anything like a normal state, and it was past Israeli administrations that supported Hamas to destabilise the PLO. Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and to build settlements on occupied territory in contravention of international law. Israel continues to discriminate against Arab Israelis and non-citizen Palestinians. And Israeli democracy has been deteriorating under Bibi!
Hamas is, in part, a consequence of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. This is not to condone Hamas's actions, but it is moral naivety not to recognise this context. It is the official policy of the UK government and that of most of our allies that we do not condone Israel's actions in Palestine, that we recognise continued settlement building as being contrary to international law and contrary to hopes for a lasting peace.
Except the facts don't back up that whatsoever. Netanyahu wasn't even in power when Hamas took over Gaza, Ehud Olmert was.
Israel wasn't blockading Gaza prior to the rise of Hamas, quite the opposite. From 2005 to 2007 (when Hamas took over) Israel was not only not blockading Gaza, they were encouraging the development of the Port of Gaza to help Gaza get developed.
Unfortunately then Hamas took over, so the blockade became necessary and was instituted by Olmert in a reversal of his and Sharon's prior plans to encourage the development of Gaza without an Israeli occupation.
If anything Netanyahu is a response to Hamas rather than the other way around, and even then he's only barely been able to be elected even with Hamas.
You appear to have misread what I wrote. I said, "it was past Israeli administrations that supported Hamas to destabilise the PLO". I didn't say it was Bibi.
You, as usual, completely skip over the continued settlement building in the West Bank.
How far past are you going? Decades before it was known what Hamas was or would become?
Prior to Bibi, Sharon and Olmert were trying to disengage from Gaza and encourage development in Gaza without an Israeli occupation. Prior to that there was a sustained period of trying to work with the PLO and Arafat, until Arafat rejected peace.
Israel like almost all democratic nations wants peace and has voted for peaceful regimes time and again, they've agreed peace with Egypt and other former enemies. If only there was a Palestinian leadership that was equal to them. Its not Israel keeping Palestinians down, its Hamas and Palestinian leadership over decades.
As for continued settlement building, I've addressed it repeatedly. Its not ideal, but considering that the Palestinians have rejected the proposed borders and the Camp David process says that final borders are up for "negotiations", Israel is entirely in its rights to respond to suicide bombers etc being sent into its territory to move the border one way by instead using settlements to put pressure on to move it the other way.
Want to stop settlements? Agree a peace treaty with a fixed border, culminate the negotiations.
Incidentally Israel has a history of respecting negotiations once an agreement is made and either dismantling or handing over settlements in response, see what happened in Sinai, Sharm el Sheikh etc.
Israel has been in military occupation of the West Bank since 1967. Yes, it is Israel keeping Palestinians down.
When you say Israel is entirely in its rights to move the border one way or the other, could you lay out which rights those are? Are these rights written down somewhere? That’s not what international law says. We don’t say Russia is within their rights to move the border one way or the other. We didn’t say Iraq was. Settlements on occupied territory are illegal under international law. That is what the UN says. That is what the US says. That is what the UK says.
The UN is wrong, and you're categorically wrong about what the US says and what international law does too.
Israel gained Gaza and the West Bank from Egypt and Jordan in a defensive war, just as Germany lost land in WWII. Egypt relinquished its claim on Gaza in the Egypt/Israel peace treaty following the Camp David Accords in the 1970s.
The Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO of 1993 quite explicitly do not define a border between Israel and a potential future Palestinian state. The 1967 border is explicitly not the border between Israel and a potential future Palestinian state.
The PLO agreed in the Oslo Accords that the future border is subject to future negotiations.
Unless you think the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Accords are not international law, they matter far more than any vote by the UN.
The US as the primary facilitator of peace talks at both Camp David under Jimmy Carter and throughout decades of peace processes including the Oslo Accords under Bill Clinton respects that the border is an issue for future negotiations. It does not prejudge those negotiations.
The PLO has tried to back its negotiators up by sending suicide bombers into Israel to pressure Israel into giving up more land. I respect sending builders and construction crews in more than suicide bombers.
And yet the existence of Israel is based on UN resolutions not the Camp David or Oslo Agreements. And when Israel wanted to invade Lebanon they cited UN resolutions for justification not the Camp David or Oslo Agreements.
So even Israel apparently doesn't agree with you.
When talking about UN Resolution its important to be clear, do you mean UNSC Resolutions, which are quasi-law, or UNGA Resolutions? Which are definitively not.
The existence of Israel is not simply because of the UN Resolutions at the time because Israel accepted the UN Resolution at the time but Egypt and Transjordan did not and invaded seeking to wipe out Israel - and succeeding in wiping out the land assigned to the Palestinians. Egypt and Transjordan did that, not Israel, not the UN.
Egypt subsequently made peace with Israel, a peace the UNGA rejected, but the UNGA is not law.
Please specify any UNSC Resolution made after the Oslo Accords that reject the Oslo Accords principle that the borders are a matter for future negotiations? I am not aware of any. The Oslo process is international law, whether you like it or not is immaterial.
Its not a matter of whether I like it. It is a matter of whether or not Israel thinks it is law. And given they launched an invasion of another country based on those resolutions (or rather on Labanon's claimed breach of them) it appears you are disagreeing with Israel as well as most of the rest of the world as well. Of course if you are an international law expert then maybe you might have a point and you can tell Israel they were wrong. But we all know you are not and Israel would probably tell you excatly where to stick your opinions.
I am far too polite to do so.
Security Council resolutions, not General Assembly ones.
You are aware of the difference aren't you? Israel sure is, as is almost everyone else.
Indeed. And so should Israel be.
They are in breach of a whole series of Security Council resolutions including 446
The Security Council
Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.
The Fourth Geneva Convention - to which Israel is a sigantory - states that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies"
This is just one of a whole raft of Security Council Resolutions that Israel has ignored, whilst at the same time using other Security Council resolutions as justification for invading neighbouring countries.
In recent years there was SC resolution 2334 which said Israel was violating international law . That went through 14 to 0 with the USA abstaining .
Wow - the Mosque Keir Starmer visited in South Wales is *absolutely furious* with him and have said the images and message he posted about the visit ‘gravely misrepresented congregants and the nature of his visit’
They apologise for hosting the visit and accuse Starmer of bringing them into disrepute.
Problems for Starmer within his own party. Unless it escalates massively, I don't see it preventing him winning a majority. Unless Corbyn...
Wow - the Mosque Keir Starmer visited in South Wales is *absolutely furious* with him and have said the images and message he posted about the visit ‘gravely misrepresented congregants and the nature of his visit’
They apologise for hosting the visit and accuse Starmer of bringing them into disrepute.
Problems for Starmer within his own party. Unless it escalates massively, I don't see it preventing him winning a majority. Unless Corbyn...
Yes, this will probably help him with swing voters.
ABC News - Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources
Meadows said Trump was "dishonest" on election night, according to sources.
Former President Donald Trump's final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith's team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.
According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being "dishonest" with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in. . . .
ABC News - Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources
Meadows said Trump was "dishonest" on election night, according to sources.
Former President Donald Trump's final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith's team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.
According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being "dishonest" with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in. . . .
ABC News - Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources
Meadows said Trump was "dishonest" on election night, according to sources.
Former President Donald Trump's final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith's team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.
According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being "dishonest" with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in. . . .
ABC News - Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources
Meadows said Trump was "dishonest" on election night, according to sources.
Former President Donald Trump's final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith's team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.
According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being "dishonest" with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in. . . .
ABC News - Ex-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows granted immunity, tells special counsel he warned Trump about 2020 claims: Sources
Meadows said Trump was "dishonest" on election night, according to sources.
Former President Donald Trump's final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith's team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.
According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being "dishonest" with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in. . . .
A lot of people allege that JFK's team was dishonest about the 1960 election. Nixon decided not to challenge the result of course.
This is not about Trump lying (protected under the 1st Amendment), or "challenging the result". He is charged with knowingly conspiring illegally to overturn the result.
Demonstrating that he was knowingly lying merely goes towards establishing state of mind.
Nice guy. James Michael Johnson (born January 30, 1972), is an American attorney and former talk radio host serving as the U.S. representative for Louisiana's 4th congressional district since 2017. A member of the Republican Party, Johnson is known for his strong opposition to legal abortion access, medical marijuana, and same-sex marriage. In January 2021, Johnson voted to overturn the results of the 2020 United States presidential election in the state of Pennsylvania.
Comments
https://successacrosscultures.com/2020/04/10/uncertainty-avoidance-and-ambiguity-tolerance-accepting-uncertainty-in-a-foreign-culture/
"An elderly American couple finds themselves babysitting their grandchildren in a small town in Italy, while the parents are temporarily located there. The grandchildren are friends with local Italian children, who all enjoy playing in the central piazza.
So, there the American grandparents are, allowing their grandchildren to run free with little restriction. Accustomed to “free play,” they don’t stand in the way of their grandchildren messing about, even if they fall down and lightly hurt themselves.
The Italian grandparents, on the other hand, are on it. Not only are their grandkids not allowed for a moment out of their sight, but any hurts that befall them are conscientiously dealt with. The child is picked up and brushed off in an instant.
This illustrates the differences in ambiguity tolerance between Americans and Italians.
In general, Americans have higher ambiguity tolerance.
Safe versus dangerous and clean versus dirty are two distinctions that an Italian child learns first during primary socialization.
The American grandparents see nothing to worry about with the dirt and danger in the piazza. In fact, they see no dirt or danger there, whatsoever."
They are in breach of a whole series of Security Council resolutions including 446
The Security Council
Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the
Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute
a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949
Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any
action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially
affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including
Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the
occupied Arab territories.
The Fourth Geneva Convention - to which Israel is a sigantory - states that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies"
This is just one of a whole raft of Security Council Resolutions that Israel has ignored, whilst at the same time using other Security Council resolutions as justification for invading neighbouring countries.
Looking into it further itappears that Low German also has the word with the same meaning as the Danish and Norwegian.
Meadows said Trump was "dishonest" on election night, according to sources.
Former President Donald Trump's final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith's team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.
According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being "dishonest" with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in. . . .
https://abcnews.go.com/US/chief-staff-mark-meadows-granted-immunity-tells-special/story?id=104231281
"Destination Europe", Clive James, The New Yorker, 1997, see https://archive.clivejames.com/books/europe.htm
https://x.com/shehabkhan/status/1716926007977087120
Wow - the Mosque Keir Starmer visited in South Wales is *absolutely furious* with him and have said the images and message he posted about the visit ‘gravely misrepresented congregants and the nature of his visit’
They apologise for hosting the visit and accuse Starmer of bringing them into disrepute.
100% proof means the alcohol content of a substance can be tested by the virtue of being able to set it on fire, so it is another use of 'prove' as meaning 'test'.
[Edit: Of course, it isn't a great test, as the vapour pressure depends on the ambient temperature]
Though I did find out this evening that the word 'Probe' apparently has the same derivation which adds weight to the 'test' interpretation.
An absolutely clear and blatant violation of his pretrial release conditions and the government should file motion to revoke it.
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1716996028702879950
Demonstrating that he was knowingly lying merely goes towards establishing state of mind.
Still short of 217 with a decent chunk of members absent plus 3 “present” votes, but Republicans hoping to go to the floor tomorrow afternoon
https://twitter.com/jordainc/status/1717020960597983253
Nice guy.
James Michael Johnson (born January 30, 1972), is an American attorney and former talk radio host serving as the U.S. representative for Louisiana's 4th congressional district since 2017. A member of the Republican Party, Johnson is known for his strong opposition to legal abortion access, medical marijuana, and same-sex marriage. In January 2021, Johnson voted to overturn the results of the 2020 United States presidential election in the state of Pennsylvania.
https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1717023332778860579
Reporter: You help lead the effort to overturn the 2020 election results, do you—
Republicans: *boo* shut up
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1717013355775545630
boiled its rice in a microwave