1. If Israel is legally justly etc the holder of Judaea and Samaria, can you please clarify which scenario you are pushing for: a) giving full Israeli citizenship and rights to the Arabs who have lived in these lands for generations thus ending the Jewish ethno state, b) expulsing them from the lands, thus explicitly advocating for the crime of ethnic cleansing, or c) formally establishing in law an apartheid regime with a permanent underclass? Please clarify.

2. If Israel is the homeland of any Jewish-American rando from New York, with ancestry in Buttfuckburg East Prussia, whose family hasn't set foot in the territory for 2000 years, then when do I as a Greek person get to assert my rights in beachfront property in Marseille and in Syracuse? Apollo promised it to me, we have a Delphic oracles and everything. Also, i have a Russian friend who says Kiyv was originally the homeland if the Rus people and therefore his country should get full rights to that land. Does he also get the privilege?

3. By your own reasoning, regarding the Arabs in the lands of greater Israel, I would like to bring up jewish people living in any other country that is not officially Jewish, where "even when they were there, they did not rule it". Can you please clarify exactly what kind of antisemitic policies you are willing to endorse and accept? Should for example British Jews enjoy full rights in the UK? Do British Jews get to consider the UK their country, their home? Do they ever get to be full and equal UK citizens, whose allegiance, rights etc are not to be questioned by any special policy, institution or individual? Or should Jews outside Israel be subject to the kind of treatment Israel reserves for Arabs in Samaria and Judaea that you say it completely super-duper legally holds?

(To be clear, I don't endorse any of this insanity. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your extremist argumentation.)

If the third parties abide by Brazilian law, they should have legal representation in the country and therefore can be pursued for circumventing the law?

“The government feels very strongly about the rule of law internationally and domestically, and the separation of powers, and I would note the courts have already received a number of submissions on either side and they are well seized of the arguments to make their determination.” She would not be drawn on whether the government had a view on whether a warrant should be issued for Netanyahu’s arrest, saying it was a matter for the courts.

This is a reasonable and honourable position, and I wish the German government was taking it as well. Instead, they painted themselves into a corner, giving carte blanche at the Israeli far right to do absolutely whatever.

Estimates vary, and that's the ceiling, given by the Ukrainians. The US estimates about half of that, the BBC estimates about a fifth of that. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

Still a staggering number of people whose lives were wasted for Putin's vanity.

It would be so amazingly fantastic if the West had any moral credibility left, because it is true that in the case of Ukraine, the West is actually preaching the right thing: a rules based international order, where nations have the right to self determination and other countries don't get to arbitrarily decide whether you have the right to exist. Like, exactly what Palestinians need.

The debate is about legalized and ostensibly regulated trophy hunting by tourists. So "Europeans" presented as a monolith here is confusing things: some of those trophy hunter tourists are European, who obviously don't care about elephants, which is why other Europeans are trying to stop them.

The president of course is correct to say that it is unreasonable for the Global North to demand that Botswana does not develop its standards of living in order to preserve wildlife. It is a colonialist way of seeing things.

The answer cannot however come from the destruction of the elephants, who are humanity's shared heritage. Europeans have a stake in Botswana's elephants as humans same as Botswanans have a stake in, say, the Parthenon or Stonehenge: as humans, as a shared human heritage.

The answer should instead be for the Global North to pay to Botswana development subsidies, increasing them as needed to achieve the required balance. So that standards of living can improve without needing to endanger the elephants.

I agree. Truong My Lan could just as well, lose her assets and spend her days repaying her debts to society. You know, on a normal person's wage, trying to make up for billions upon billions. Should be enough time.

Guess what fucko, western civilization survived the end of apartheid in South Africa, and will survive the end of apartheid in Israel/Palestine.

"nightmare happened"

Such passive language. How about "atrocity was committed"?

Some missing context is that the OCU is the church that is canonically recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchate of Alexandria, as well as the church of Greece and the church of Cyprus. The celebration on December 25 is not "western style", it is the canonical day for much of the non-russian aligned orthodox world, including in Greece.

OK, so hear me out: anyone who is for a Two State Solution can legitimately call themselves a zionist, because one of those two states is going to be Israel.

Zionism:

​a political movement that was originally begun in order to establish an independent state for Jewish people, and now supports the development and protection of the state of Israel

In current parlance, "zionism" has come be equated with kahanism and its variations, but that is wildly inaccurate. This is to say that Netanyahu's and his allies' brand of zionism is an extremist variant that threatens to subsume the whole.

But there are other brands of zionism that are peaceful and pro-palestinian. Namely: the zionism of Fatah and the PLO, who have accepted the 2 state solution.

I would even go so far as to claim that any One State Solution that envisions a pluralistic and democratic country shared in freedom and liberty between Jews, Muslims, Christians and others is also a zionist vision, as it assumes that this state would also be for the Jewish people (similar to how Canada is supposed to be also for the Quebecois people).

So, I am not sure why "zionism" should be a dirty word. Call the extremist zionists what they are: kahanists, reclaim the basic idea that zionism means that Jews also have the right to be safe in the lands of Israel-Palestine, and let's have some peace and reconciliation.

You don't know anything about history.

They will not leave. They will hunker down and survive. Hope for better days. Conquered people have done this for all of history. Hell, Jews have done this exact thing over millenia, for them survival itself is success, it's the bedrock of so many of their celebrations. Ironically, this it seems is a lesson they might end up passing to the Palestinians.