I have 140,800 followers. My last 10 tweets have a cumulative 50 RTs. Not each. This is adding all the RTs in my last 10 tweets. 3 of them have zero RTs. I think the free speech absolutist is censoring me guys

Why did you selectively left out the parts that actually establish intent, the element the State Department treated as the only reasonable inference from the pattern of atrocities? The 2018 report + 2022 determination didn’t rest on “background narrative + displacement.” They pointed to: - 75% refugees witnessed the military kill someone; half witnessed sexual violence (nearly 40% by security forces, including systematic gang rape); 1 in 5 witnessed a mass-casualty event (>100 killed/injured at once). - Coordinated operations that locked people in burning houses, fenced villages then shot into crowds, and sank boats of people already fleeing. - Attacks exclusively on Rohingya villages (sparing non-Rohingya ones), burning of mosques and Korans. -Defector accounts of orders to shoot on sight, burn, rape, and kill every Rohingya. Those acts were what the US cited as showing specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part, not the thin selective version in your thread.

"You think you can get me in trouble... GO TO HELL!" Yishai Fleisher clashes furiously with Owen Jones as he brings up equality in Israel. Watch more 👇 📺 youtu.be/K4HP4XfVlEs @piersmorgan | @owenjonesjourno | @YishaiFleisher

Eleger Flávio Bolsonaro é colocar a milícia no comando do país.

This is such an interesting clash of cultures. I'm not sure Gaza ranks among even the top 20 foreign policy questions of the last 25 years. Iraq is a bit higher, but in the long run, surprisingly inconsequential too.

I'm really interested in what the decision will say because it will tell us a lot about the future of genocide jurisprudence. If we see the movement to diminish the dolus specialis requirement to make it effectively null, it will be ripe for critique and criticism. If we see that the ICJ "expands" to find that genocide can coexist with armed conflict, that isn't so much a change as it could be. There's reasonable conversation to have on the latter. There isn't reasonable conversation on the former.

The whole olive harvest campaign is theater based on some Western fantasy of what natives are like. Palestinians are a highly urbanized population, and those harvesting olives in remote fields have planted them as political prop, not an agricultural activity.

Another find in the archives. A January 1945 memorandum written by the British Colonial Office confirming the Jewish Agency’s refusal to approve visas to a group of (mostly ultra-orthodox) rabbis, because they were assumed to be anti Zionist. The last paragraph is the key. “The reason why the Rabbis cannot be brought under any of the schemes of the Jewish Agency for the grant of visas for Palestine is that they are not personae gratae to the Jewish Agency. Those in control of the Jewish Agency are not at the moment sympathetic to religion. Moreover, some of the main Rabbis are no doubt not Zionists. This was one of the main reasons for the inauguration of the Mauritius scheme.”

“Maybe I was late in concluding that that wasn’t entirely true—that there was a policy for parts of Gaza to be made uninhabitable,” [Walzer] said. A moment later, he added, “I was certainly slow to see that.”