The way you describe it I would say this post is in the news-like content.

Apart from that, in the description of this magazine it says otherwise and does not limit its content the way you describe it. It doesn’t mention what the source should be, talks about the content. I will use only the part I find relevant to this conversation:

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events, analysis or other informative content related to politics both domestic and international.

So what you say just doesn’t make any sense according to this community’s description, rules and guidelines. Unless I’m missing something? If you have something to add, I am all ears.

[edit: maybe this is relevant as well?]

@HandsHurtLoL and the other mods, for starters, thank you for your time.

I am trying to understand how the rules are related to the removal of posts in this magazine. I ask this because I have had so far 3 articles that have been removed but to my understanding they where totally compliant with this magazine’s intentions and rules. I only contacted you for the 3rd one, which was reinstated but I was not given any explanation for the removal. I was no exception, I saw in the mod log that explanations are rarely provided.

So may I ask, why were the following 3 articles removed in the first place? I am trying to understand the criteria of this magazine in order to comply to those and be part of the conversation.

links of removed posts:

https://kbin.social/m/politics/t/698728/5-big-promises-made-at-annual-UN-climate-talks-and
Associated Press article

https://kbin.social/m/politics/t/698640/The-Israel-Hamas-War-Could-Sink-Gas-Development-in-the-Eastern
World Politics Review article

the reinstated one:
https://kbin.social/m/politics/t/848578/Israel-must-end-its-occupation-of-Palestine-to-stop-fuelling
Amnesty International article

this is stretching thin the premise of this magazine

May I ask for some clarifications on this statement?

I am not ignoring the first part, this is why every military action doesn’t qualify under that statute but Israel is “plausibly” doing a Genocide according to ICJ. Personally I don’t need a court decision to make up my mind.

Plausible does not mean probable

see dictionary for details?

Apart from that, you haven’t said anything about what are Israel’s responsibilities, and you actively ignored my specific question on the matter. We cannot talk solutions without that so I don’t see any point continuing this attempt to have a conversation.

to get the Arab League to enforce a demilitarized zone between Palestine and Israel

Let’s say that this is what he’s saying. I don’t see you mentioning what Israel has to do, so this reading cannot not be a solution cause it leaves out the responsibilities of Israel. What would you put on the top of the list of what Israel has to do? My answer to that would be that Israel has to stop bombing and starving, civilians and children, as well as recognize Palestine.

On Genocide, Israel is doing at least 3 of the 5 required for one to be called as such. And ICJ court said “plausible” so far.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

It’s more than “calling them out” when they helped create the situation. The Arab league invaded Israel (…)

I was not talking about Arab people, I don’t know where you got that from.

Also before the Arab league invaded Israel, (debatable but not our topic) Israel had to be created as a country. If Israel has the right to exist in West Asia, there are no valid arguments on why Palestine should not have that right as well. Are there?

For the apartheid in South Africa to end, both colonizers and colonized worked together for some sort of solution. Palestine has recognized Israel as part of the Oslo agreement. As long as Israel is not recognizing Palestine, no solution can be implemented, and the Genocide will continue.

that’s assuming all these concerned parties actually want a solution and not just to vilify Israel

For this statement to be valid it would be required that the concerned parties are equal. In the case of the Israel and Palestine there is a power imbalance. On one hand there is the zionist settler colonial power of Israel that is one of the strongest military forces in the world. One the other hand you have Palestine that is not even recognized as a country by the colonizers and instead of borders the colonizer has raised a wall controlling amongst other things the few entrances.

Calling out Israel for its settler colonial policies is no synonym to vilifying it.

deleted by creator

The MTD is one of the first things that a judge needs to decide

That makes sense.

It’s just that the way your initial comment was:

The Friday hearing was about the government’s motion to dismiss

made me think that this was the only thing discussed.

So briefly, on Friday started the hearings of the case Defense for Children International-Palestine v. Biden, and Biden’s defense lawyer said their piece, which was -at least in part- their MTD.

(I haven’t watched all the videos yet. Will do to have a better understanding of the case.)

deleted by creator

To my understanding on Friday it was just the beginning of the hearing of the case, not of the motion to dismiss it.

Lawsuit Seeking to Stop US Aid to Israel Has First Court Hearing in Oakland - kqed

I am pretty sure this is not the way it was written in the original filing. Apart from that some clarifications are given in the sentences that follow the first one, the one quoted.

edit: found the following and thought of sharing .

Defense for Children International-Palestine v. Biden || uscourts.gov link with court videos

Plaintiffs, representing Palestinian human rights organizations and individuals, sue the US Government under international human rights law for its failure to exercise influence over Israel to prevent genocide.

To my understanding this is a preliminary rulling.