I wouldn’t be surprised if this nonsense from the Namibian government will achieve absolutely nothing, except for driving the two countries apart again and setting back reconciliation by a considerable amount. Namibia doesn’t have anything to bargain with, which means they need the goodwill of Germany if they want more money - which they won’t get by being mock outraged over core German foreign policy principles.
Seems to be about governments fighting over who did more genocide. It’d be nice if we could all just agree “genocide is bad”, stop doing it, pay reparations, and move on :/
74 lashings is insane. Whips cause some of the most severe acute pain which is possible to experience with 10 lashes often being lethal from just the shock. Hopefully the Iranian people can overcome this and take back some control.
I understand that a lot of “moral” crimes in Iran are like how Americans used to regard pot, something that is illegal which most people are fine with even though you would never want the police to find out if you had done it. Alcohol is easy to find in their public markets, for example. Hopefully this egregious event attracts some support from people who hadn’t taken it as seriously.
Flying missions to there from Cyprus feels like we are doing it just to show we can, surely that could have been handled much easier by the US carrier…
It’s to show our support and prove we will get involved if asked/required. The US carrier could have flattened the place on it’s own certainly. The Netherlands, Australia, Canada and Bahrain provided support as part of the mission as well.
I was expecting Isreal to brush off the ICJ charges in contempt and ignore the process entirely like the US always has and would help them to do as well. It’s interesting to see how their PR has shifted recently from " It’s not a genocide when we do it" to “We’re not doing what we’ve been saying we’ve been doing for many decades.”
Yes, the US news media has a fairly long complete-since-the-founding-of-the-US history of dehumanizing people of color in their language. No surprise it’s kicked into overdrive with this “conflict” in particular.
This is a really good article, and I like that they made their data public and put a link to it right in the article.
Also, I knew it was bad, but looking at these numbers it’s even worse than I thought. I recommend reading this one.
Like, this part:
Asymmetry in how children are covered is qualitative as well as quantitative. On October 13, the Los Angeles Times ran an Associated Press report Opens in a new tabthat said, “The Gaza Health Ministry said Friday that 1,799 people have been killed in the territory, including more than 580 under the age of 18 and 351 women. Hamas’s assault last Saturday killed more than 1,300 people in Israel, including women, children and young music festivalgoers.” Notice that young Israelis are referred to as children while young Palestinians are described as people under 18.
During discussions around the prisoner exchanges, this frequent refusal to refer to Palestinians as children was even more stark, with the New York Times referring in one case to “Israeli women and children” being exchanged for “Palestinian women and minors.” (Palestinian children are referred to as “children” later in the report, when summarizing a human rights groups’ findings.)
A Washington Post report from November 21 announcing the truce deal erased Palestinian women and children altogether: “President Biden said in a statement Tuesday night that a deal to release 50 women and children held hostage by Hamas in Gaza, in exchange for 150 Palestinian prisoners detained by Israel.” The brief did not mention Palestinian women and children at all.
That is so fucked up. And there are a bunch of other examples like it re. the disparity in the language these newspapers use.
Tangentially, and though this is a whole can of worms and rather beside the point we should be focusing on at the moment: I am also disturbed that it’s apparently still common practice to bundle women together with children like this - if they just mean “noncombatants” or “caregivers” then they should say that, just saying “women and children” like this demeans female combatants and male caregivers alike. I can sort of understand an argument for it in certain contexts where women are subjugated and denied a lot of rights, but this language is used regardless of social contexts.
Cross-posting this from /c/socialism because I think it’s a quality analysis.
This is also a reminder that you’re on Beehaw and our one rule is to bee nice. We’ve seen a lot of comment threads on this conflict turn into cursing matches, lets not do that again please 💜
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.