UNOvven

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@BTC181976 @josecanyousee @NLH2224 Additionally Israel would keep the Jewish neighbourhoods and the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, while Palestinians would get the Palestinian neighbourhoods and the muslim and armenian quarters in Jerusalem. Israel gets the Western Wall, Palestine keeps the Temple Mount. Etc. etc..

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@BTC181976 @josecanyousee @NLH2224 The exact details differ based on who you ask, we don't have a map for it the way we do for the Israeli offer, but Beinart cites Gilead Sher, Israels co-chief negotiator, stating the proposal amounted to Israel annexing 2.5% of the west bank with 1 to 1 landswaps.

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@josecanyousee @NLH2224 You can read what Gilead Sher said about the counteroffer in Beinarts 2012 book, pages 81 onwards. The ISBN is 9781429943468, you should be able to find a copy at any reasonably large library nearby.

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@fred_guttenberg @brhodes There's a popular phrase for this:

"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."

You sure keep running into assholes 24/7, what does that tell you?

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@trumwill No, it's the fact that people increasingly can get information directly instead of filtered through news that manufacture consent. Ask any of the people supporting Israel what the camp david "offer" looked like, not a single one will give you the right answer.

Its this btw:

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@josecanyousee @NLH2224 Also incorrect, but unsurprising from the same moron who blindly believed the interviewers lie there. He came up with a counteroffer (and endorsed the geneva accords and the arab peace initiative later, both of which actually resemble the DSA position). Israel just rejected it.

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@NikkiBarnes This is what the interviewer says "resembles" DSA policy. I'm afraid you are the dumb one. Do some research next time instead of blindly gulping down propaganda aimed at morons.

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@fred_guttenberg Ironic to say that, while quoting a tweet that is itself quoting an interviewer that is literally just lying. The DSA ideal for Palestine resembles the Camp David "offer" in the same sense that a slingshot resembles a railgun.

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@fred_guttenberg No, progressives overwhelmingly voted for her. It was mostly undecidedand politically disillusioned voters who didnt vote for her. And while her support for Israels genocide in Gaza wasn't the only reason, it was a big reason. It was people like YOU that ensured Trumps reelection

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@ShahakShapira @AminAlMagrebi @YahudiBrudi Er hatte eine Position dazu, klar, aber sie war keineswegs ein großer Teil seiner politischen Identität. Der Kern seiner ganzen Kampagne war Affordability und die Liebe für New York.

Ist natürlich nach hinten los gegangen, aber ob es mit dem damaligen Wissen dumm war, weiß nicht

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@ShahakShapira @AminAlMagrebi @YahudiBrudi Bei seinem Vorgängern, Eric Adams, hat es tatsächlich einen großen Teil seiner politischen Identität ausgemacht. Der einzige Grund warum man so viel über Mamdanis Position dazu weiß ist weil Cuomo versucht hat Israel zum zentralen Wahlkampfthema zu machen. Mamdani tat es nie.

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@ShahakShapira @derJamesJackson If a US supreme court ruling stated 6 to 3 that birthright citizenship, as enshrined in the constitution, remains in effect and cannot be infringed upon, would you also argue that brithright citizenship doesn't apply to the children of immigrants and cite Judge Thomas?

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@ShahakShapira @derJamesJackson The ICJ in fact held that Israel was guilty of Apartheid. That is what a breach of article 3 of the CERD is, as explained by the president of the court at the time, Judge Salam, in his declaration. You are using an overruled dissenting opinion to deny this, which is ludicrous.

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@ShahakShapira @derJamesJackson Yes, and Article 3 of CERD is the prohibition of racial segregation or Apartheid, which are synonymous for the purposes of the CERD. That is not disputed.

Judge Nolte was in the minority that was overruled, his opinion has NO legal relevance whatsoever. Its a court by majority.

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@derJamesJackson @ShahakShapira This is akin to looking at a 7-2 opinion in the US supreme court, and then looking at the opinion of the overruled 2 to tell how to interpret the ruling. These courts function by majority rules for a reason. The majority found that Israel committed the crime of Apartheid.

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@derJamesJackson @ShahakShapira I presume he refers to the seperate opinion of judge Nolte, however judge Nolte was in the minority that was overruled (he did not believe that the court had grounds to find Israel violated article 3 of the CERD at all). As such his opinion has no bearing on the majority ruling.

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@ShahakShapira @derJamesJackson Of particular note: Seperate Declaration of South African Judge Tladi, who experienced Apartheid:

"But, if we compare the policies of the South African apartheid regime with the practices of Israel in the OPT, it is impossible not to come to the conclusion that they are similar"

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@ShahakShapira @derJamesJackson https://t.co/FOy592hayj

Article 3: States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.

[UNOvven @UNOvven]

@ShahakShapira @derJamesJackson Paragraph 229 of the July 2024 Advisory Opinion. Israel is found to be in breach of Article 3 of the CERD. Article 3 of CERD is the prohbition of racial segregation or Apartheid, which in the context of the CERD, are synonyms for the same concept. James is correct. You are not.