Matt

The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust hath the just’s umbrella.

[Matt @mattymo77]

@KS4P45V2 Following you for your intelligent and humorous insight🤣

[Matt @mattymo77]

@hearnimator She's drawing attention to Israel's war against Hamas and the fact that many thousands of children have been killed. Perhaps Israel should simply not kill thousands of children if they don't like being called out for it.

[Matt @mattymo77]

@DKruku @Tracking_Power @JewishChron They think if they throw enough shit, some of it will stick. Well done for calling the shit flingers out!

[Matt @mattymo77]

@SpencerGuard @joerogan Who funds you/your organisation? Does your funding include donations from weapon manufacturers? Your job is war, I'm guessing you like a bit of combat and bloodshed. What would you do if peace was proclaimed? Sit on your arse and have nothing to say, that's what.

[sarah @sahouraxo]

BREAKING: Ireland announces it will join South Africa in the genocide case filed against Israel before the International Court of Justice.

[David__Osland @David__Osland]

Don't clean up your dog's poo and get fined £1000. Own shares in water companies that dump vast amounts of sewage in Britain's rivers and get paid billions in dividends.

[Matt @mattymo77]

@GavinDorris @JamesEFoster @Peston @JewishNewsUK It's almost like there's been no interest in having that 'kind' of Jewish person's view broadcast.

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

Since the beginning, it's been obvious that Gaza was in many ways a fight between International Law and the US's "rules-based order".
https://t.co/HWvdrSTlAe

This whole episode around the UN resolution is a perfect illustration of this. There is no debate amongst international law scholars that resolutions by the UN Security Council that "demand" certain actions are binding (good explanation by a legal scholar here: https://t.co/XO9NPthNkJ). In fact resolutions by the council ARE international law, article 25 of the UN Charter clearly states: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."

Yet the US now argues that the "rule" is in fact different: "It's a non-binding resolution, so there's no impact at all on Israel".

Where is this rule written, that somehow when the UNSC "demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire", it's non-binding and "there's no impact at all" on the warring party? Nowhere, that's the beauty of the rules-based order: the rules are made-up in the moment to fit the interests of the U.S. and its henchmen, depending on the circumstances.

Had the very same resolution, with the exact same language, been adopted for a conflict that the U.S. actually wanted stopped, there's no doubt they'd have argued the exact opposite: that it was binding and the hostilities had to cease immediately. Which goes to show that sometimes the Rules-Based Order does align with international law, when it's in the US's interests to do so.

In that sense, Israel's genocide in Gaza is a great revealer because everything about it goes against international law: the mass killing of civilians, journalists, and humanitarian workers; the pre-existing occupation of Palestinian land; the wholesale destruction of Gaza: the hospitals, the mosques, the schools; the torture of prisoners; the deliberate starvation of the population, etc. So never before have we been able to see in such an obvious way the immense contrast between the rules-based order and international law.

And there's no going back, the curtain was pulled: if they hadn't noticed before, the world now knows for sure that the US (and Israel of course) is quite literally a rogue state, operating outside international laws and norms, and outside the most fundamental moral principles.

There's no overstating how consequential this is for the integrity of international relations. By doing so, the US effectively destroys the world order it largely created after WW2 because it effectively tells everyone that the set of institutions, rules and norms that underpin it are meaningless. We're effectively now in a world system where everyone realizes the police, the government, the basic set of beliefs, have become completely corrupted. This changes everything.

What comes next? I think there's no coming back for the U.S. And I think they know this, maybe unconsciously, otherwise they would at least pretend to act for the better good of all. The fact they don't shows they've effectively abdicated ambitions to restore their hegemony: they're now nakedly in it to milk the system for themselves, universal pretentions have gone.

Most countries however don't want to live in an "eat or get eaten"/"might makes right" world, without rules or norms. So in time a new system will arise. The biggest unknowns being: can it arise without a major global war, who will lead the construction of its foundations and how can it be set up so that this time around it is fair for all and respected by all?

[Matt @mattymo77]

@Drapetomaniacle @emmadentcoad Personally, I don't think Mason's quoted comments were 'substantially correct' even slightly altering the language the woman used could infer she had implied something else.Trying to accuse the woman of antisemitism was not correct because she stated explicitly 'israel'.

[Declassified UK @declassifiedUK]

Incredibly, the High Court has refused to admit fresh evidence of CIA plots to kidnap or kill Julian Assange.

The judges say the rationale for kidnapping or killing Assange would be removed if he is extradited, and the evidence is thus not worth consideration.

Read that again.

[Matt @mattymo77]

@emmadentcoad From what I heard the woman speaking genuinely and understandably was concerned with the influence of a foreign state in the labour party. She didn't mention Jews and only mentioned Israel.

[Matt @mattymo77]

@emmadentcoad The question is: substantially correct in what way?
In his quoting of the words used?
No, his phrasing is substantially different.
Or in his point where he tries to conflate Jews with Israel unprompted and therefore accuses the speaker of antisemitism?

[Tom London @TomLondon6]

Paul, I was at meeting. Audience member did not use words you attribute

She did talk about Israeli influence over Starmer & parts of Labour Party

You can debate the facts but it’s completely wrong to equate such criticism with Antisemitism

It’s legitimate political comment

[Lowkey @Lowkey0nline]

It is reported that the agent who trafficked Shamima Begum also trafficked at least 140 people, some say mostly British citizens, some say all.

It is thought by Turkish police that the handler of this agent was an employee of British intelligence working from Canadian embassy.

[BladeoftheSun @BladeoftheS]

Rishi Sunak and his wife Akshata Murty are worth at least £730m, a company owned by Akshata Murty received a £350k Government loan, it is now being wound up without a penny being repaid.

It is nothing to these two, RT if they should pay it.

[Lowkey @Lowkey0nline]

Jody Mcintyre running against Jess Phillips in the next election.