1) The Oslo Accords provide that the PA is responsible for medical care in Gaza/WB 2) The PA did not ask Israel to procure vaccine for it and insisted it would procure it independently 3) Israel has not hindered them from doing so
The same folks who insist that Palestine is a state that should be a member of the UN and the ICC has jurisdiction over also seem to think Israel should be ignoring the PA's treaty-given rights and responsibilities. Because why not
Israel is rapidly vaccinating its ENTIRE population, Jews and non-Jews alike. It is not responsible for the vaccination of the population in Gaza or the West Bank, legally or morally. It *is* good epidemiology, given how intertwined the polities are, to help anyway
But (1) the primary responsibility is to Israeli citizens and residents; and (2) it can only do what it is invited to.
This isn't complicated, and the contrary view is just a modern version of the blood libel/"chosen"/Jew-as-plague-carrier antisemitic garbage
It's not insightful, it's not moral, it's not "opposing apartheid" - it's bigoted, evil, and wrong.
Stop it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
All, I am humbly asking you to please support this important charity, which protects Jewish women from abuse and helps them through it. If my election suit coverage made your days better, and you can give or signal boost, I'd very much appreciate it jgive.com/new/en/usd/don…
For those who don't know, in Jewish law, a religious divorce is accomplished by means of a "Get", which is a religious document that must be given by the husband (personally or through an agent) to the wife to have any validity
Without the Get, the parties are still religiously married, with all the consequences that entails.
This should not be an issue. In 99% of cases, it's not. Not giving a Get is abusive - it leaves the wife locked in, unable to move on - and most of us aren't abusers
Aside from trying and again failing to legislate around 230 - which protects social media companies from any liability at all for "viewpoint discrimination," they've now added an "aiding and abetting" claim against users for reporting content to moderators
People don't realize how expensive litigation is even if you don't pay your attorney a cent. Filing fees. Court reporters. Discovery vendors. And good luck trying to get them to waive their fees
I've actually had some luck with an e-discovery vendor I use regularly. But I can't do that too often.
OK, let's start talking about the House's 80 page brief on impeachment. It really is an incredibly well-done piece of work. There are some things I'd do differently and some pieces I didn't love, but overall, it's very very good.
Again - this thread will happen in fits and starts. I'm swamped at work and this will come in 10-15 minute chunks as I take a break
Let's start by taking a look at the table of contents. After a 4-page intro (that's relatively long, don't love it), the brief spends a solid 30 pages walking through the facts underlying the impeachment - and, the subheadings tell us, tying in Trump's general refusal to accept
This is the rare occasion where I disagree with Ken on defamation policy. True defamation involving a public figure is vanishingly rare, and everyone should err on the side of not chilling core political speech.
That means you put on your grown-up pants and suck it up a lot. BUT
A political culture that embraces anyone saying anything at all at any time, completely without regard for truth and despite knowing it was false, is toxic and damaging to the country. And without consequences, it will continue to proliferate
Everything in that first tweet is still true, and that means that if there's any rational defense at all, you should err on the side of not suing folks like Rudy for being political hacks.
But insane conspiracy theories even they don't believe, deployed to rally the gullible?