Good morning: Hey, Seattle. You can expect more of the same weather today. This morning, temperatures will stay in the low 50s and you may see some showers. In the afternoon, things will dry up, the sun will poke out of the clouds a little, and temperatures will peak at about 56 degrees. 

Leave Maya Henry alone: One Direction band member Liam Payne died yesterday after falling from his hotel balcony in Argentina. His ghoulish fans have launched a hate campaign against his ex-fiancée, Maya Henry, blaming her for his death because she recently sent him a cease-and-desist letter, accusing him of obsessive and harassing behavior. You freaks better leave her alone. This is not her fault, and blaming her will only scare women into silence about abuse. 

Secret Service sucks ass: An independent, bipartisan review panel released a scathing report about the Secret Service’s failure to interrupt the near-miss assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump this summer. The panel called the Secret Service “bureaucratic, complacent, and static,” arguing that without reform such an attack can and will happen again. 

Archdiocese says sorry: The Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay a historic settlement of $880 million to more than 1,300 victims of clergy sexual abuse. And they deserve every penny!

Let’s fucking go:

A moment of clarity: In the city council’s select budget committee meeting today, Council Member Cathy Moore made an important point while discussing the future of the City’s JumpStart payroll expense tax. The mayor proposed stealing from the tax’s fund to backfill a deficit in the 2025-2026 budget, disregarding its legal obligation to pay for affordable housing, Green New Deal initiatives, and a few other select priorities. But that plan would still leave a deficit for 2027. Moore said in the meeting that if the City wants to fix the deficit long-term, then the mayor’s plan won’t cut it. The City must either cut spending or find new revenue, she said. So, next time the mayor brags about balancing a budget in the face of a huge deficit without raising taxes, remember he just punted the problem two years at the expense of more than $200 million in affordable housing. 

This is your sign to answer unsaved numbers: You may just get a call from the Mayor of Seattle.

Ashley has something to say!

Federal oversight of Seattle cops continues: Yesterday, US District Court Judge James L. Robart checked in with the City and the Seattle Police Department (SPD) on their progress in meeting the goals of a federal settlement established about 12 years ago to curb biased policing, among other things. The City argued that they’re very nearly in compliance with everything in the settlement agreement except for crowd control management policy. The City claimed they made progress in that area and had recently sent a new policy to the city council for approval, which the court would have a chance to approve at a later date.

One major change that doesn’t seem so good: The new crowd control policy allows other local law enforcement agencies that SPD calls for backup—who don’t have special training—to use “less lethal crowd control tools,” such as blast balls or pepper spray, on protesters. Kinda of defeats the purpose of what Robart wanted to see in the policy, which included intensive training for SPD officers to avoid mass disproportional force against crowds. I will have more on that and the hearing later.

Now over to Vivian. Team effort on the Slog this morning!

So much for supporting teachers and students: After student bullies on Instagram, right-wingers on Facebook, and conservative commentator Brandi Kruse ran English teacher K. Wayne out of Peninsula School District over their drag persona, Jack King Goff, students testified to the school board that the departure was just the latest example of out-of-control online bullying in the district. Then the Superintendent published a letter addressing the rise of harmful online bullying, promising to add it to the district’s ongoing review of belonging policy. So how did the school board, which includes Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate David Olson, respond? It passed a version of a policy from the Washington State School Directors Association to restrict the way staff can express themselves online, which makes clear they can be disciplined or fired for this sort of thing in the future.

In a statement, Board President Natalie Wimberley said that while she understood concerns about ambiguity, lawyers “thoroughly vetted” the policy, which is meant to balance staff expression with the district’s responsibility to maintain an orderly learning environment. They’re not trying to infringe on anyone’s rights, she said. “Our governance must remain thoughtful and prudent, not tied emotionally to any particular moment or group, but focused on what will best serve our students and staff now and in the future.” Their lack of consideration for “particular” groups is clear. She did not give an answer for why the board has not substantively responded to months of complaints about anti-Black and anti-gay bullying. The Stranger reminded her that she is a public official and it is her job to answer such questions. The local teacher’s union did not respond to a request for comment. The district says similar policies have been implemented in other districts.

Would you look at that: You know all those unhinged campaign videos that State House candidate Andrea Suarez has been posting on Twitter? The ones where she calls her opponent, Shaun Scott, a communist, despite the fact that literally every Democratic org and basically the whole Seattle delegation in Olympia supports him? Turns out, fallen KOMO reporter Jonathan Choe filmed some of them! A previous version of this blurb incorrectly stated that Suarez paid him. Choe kindly pointed out that filmed as an “in-kind” donation, giving his labor for free because he believes in her so much. Choe went from splicing together gushing montages of the Proud Boys to playing campaign videographer for Suarez. Huge career shift!

Beirut: Yesterday, Israel launched new strikes on the capital of Lebanon. Lebanese officials report Israel has killed at least 2,350 people and wounded almost 11,000 others in the last month. 

Yemen: The US sent B-2 stealth bombers to strike the Houthis’ underground weapons facilities in Yemen on Wednesday. I could not find how many people the US killed in the strikes. US defense officials told CNN that these five facilities stored advanced conventional weapons used to target military and civilian vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Houthis have targeted more than 80 merchant vessels in the last year, claiming to attack ships linked to Israel as a way to pressure the country into stopping its genocide in Gaza. However, Houthis have attacked many ships with seemingly little to no connection to Israel, according to the AP. 

ICYMI: We dropped our endorsement package this week for the upcoming election. Rip open that ballot and do as we say!

Good old-fashioned election denial: Republican nominee Donald Trump’s freaky lil VP pick, JD Vance, finally admitted yesterday that he does not believe Trump lost the 2020 election. He told a reporter, “No, I think there are serious problems in 2020. So did Donald Trump lose the election? Not by the words that I would use.” Vance usually redirects questions about who won the 2020 election. Most famously, in a debate earlier this month, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris’s VP pick Tim Walz asked Vance if Trump lost in 2020 and Vance said, “Tim, I’m focused on the future.” Walz called that a “damning non-answer.” 

For your ears: My friend recommended this song because I cannot be bothered to think of a song every week. I don’t have good taste!

Hannah Krieg is a staff writer at The Stranger covering everything that goes down at Seattle City Hall. Importantly, she is a Libra. She is also The Stranger's resident Gen Z writer, with an affinity for...

85 replies on “Slog AM: Jonathan Choe Films Andrea Suarez’s Unhinged Campaign Ads, Secret Service Gets Roasted for Trump Assassination Attempt, One Direction’s Liam Payne Died”

  1. @49: Yes, and he does the same thing with “genocide” that he does with “apartheid.” Gotta attach those chilling labels, whether they apply or not, ha ha!

  2. I never claimed that President Salam in his opinion was speaking for the whole court. I was merely pointing out that you were obviously wrong (to put it kindly) about his opinion in your comment @42. I was using it as an example of the deceitful yarn you are spinning because I didn’t want to go into a blow by blow rebuttal of all your other unsubstantiated claims.

    Other judges not explicitly discussing apartheid in their opinions certainly doesn’t mean they disagree that “racial segregation and apartheid” means “racial segregation and apartheid” despite your claim. You are subjectively imparting meaning to opinions even though they broadly agree that racial discrimination and state imposed segregation are taking place (the conditions for apartheid) in the occupied territories while they don’t explicitly express descent on the subject of apartheid even though it is cited in the court’s finding of Israel violating article 3 of CERD.

    Similarly your claim that a judge who thinks that the occupation isn’t illegal also must think that apartheid is not happening doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You are going to have to provide specific argumentation for every opinion you claim supports your point of view. I am not going to do the work for you.

    As for your quaint exercise it fails in more ways than one because a) there isn’t a single law criminalizing theft and murder because they are acts of a different nature whereas apartheid is racial segregation enforced according to rules decided by the state of Israel and b) court documents for someone in jail for murder and not theft wouldn’t also contain evidence showing this person committed theft and cited the law also making theft a violation. The court documents in this case discuss state imposed racial segregation in the occupied territories that forms the basis of apartheid as its definition indicates and thus constitutes a violation of article 3 of CERD.

  3. @49 I knew you would pull that jaundiced argument. First ‘tantamount to” means “equivalent to” so there is no value in you believing it alleviates the charge. Second, he says tantamount because apartheid is defined in the context of South Africa and some jurists have difficulty applying the definnition in a different context.

    @51 yes “gotta attach those chilling labels” to murderers and war criminals too. “boohoo, not fair”

  5. @49 “ICJ [….] stops short of finding Israel guilty of apartheid.”

    False. The ICJ finds that Israel enforces racial segregation in occupied territories, which is the very definition of apartheid and thus violates article 3 of CERD that bans racial segregation and apartheid

  6. @52: Nope, Salam recognizes that either segregation or apartheid or both is sufficient to constitute a violation of the convention. He reads the law on apartheid my way, not your way. See his paragraphs 15 and 16, recognizing a distinction between segregation that is not apartheid versus actual apartheid.

    Now, Salam does read the facts on apartheid your way, in that he finds there is apartheid. Hence the need for his 63-paragraph declaration emphasizing that it’s not just any old segregation we’re talking about, it’s specifically apartheid. However, that is his opinion, not that of the court as a whole. The only other judge who shares Salam’s opinion on apartheid is Tlabi.

    The other judges either affirmatively read the facts on apartheid differently, with some finding no apartheid (three judges out of 15) and others finding no illegality in the occupation at all (four judges out of 15), or else are silent on the facts of segregation vs apartheid (six judges out of 15).

    Reading your comments as charitably as possible, I think maybe you believe the six silent judges were agreeing with Salam and Tlabi that apartheid was occurring? But that doesn’t necessary follow, as every judge who discusses the text of the convention recognizes that EITHER segregation OR apartheid would violate the convention prohibiting BOTH segregation AND apartheid. Thus, when the silent six judges agree that the convention against segregation and apartheid has been violated, they MIGHT be agreeing that there is apartheid, or they MIGHT be agreeing that there is segregation, or they MIGHT be agreeing that there is both, just like in my Barney-style example @48.

    So count noses again:

    2 for apartheid

    3 for segregation but not apartheid

    4 for no illegality of any description

    6 for either segregation or apartheid or both

    This means there could be, at most, 8 votes for apartheid, assuming every one of the silent six went for apartheid. (And discounting out of hand your suggestion that the four “no illegality” judges might have detected apartheid but deemed the apartheid to be legal, lol!) But 8 votes for apartheid would have constituted a majority of the court, so the opinion would simply say, “Yep, there’s apartheid all right.” In reality, that’s not what the opinion says—and your boy Salam knows that’s not what it says, that’s why he had to write so many paragraphs about apartheid! 😄

    So I don’t think there’s any basis to conclude that every one of the silent six voted for apartheid. Not only is that not borne out in the text of any of their separate opinions, it’s also not borne out in the opinion of the court. Apartheid didn’t get 8 votes, the minimum threshold for a majority opinion. Sorry, bruh, but apartheid was just not the finding of the court, no matter how you slice it.

    At this point, I’ve gone from “leading a horse to water” to “forcing the horse’s head underwater while the horse tenaciously holds his breath.” 😄 As someone who cares about these issues, you owe it yourself and to Palestine to read the ICJ advisory opinion for what it actually says, not what you wish it says. Be like Judge Salam. Recognize that you don’t always have the votes on all of your biggest issues, no matter how right you think are, but you can still keep hitting singles even if you can’t hit home runs.

    Not to worry, Professor Thumpus will be here to hold your hand whenever you need! 😁

  8. @57 By definition apartheid is institutionalized racial segregation

    posturing and fake laughing make you look stupid

    @56 There is nothing in Salam’s paragraph 15 and 16 that supports your comment. Use citations or get lost.

    I don’t really give a ff about how many might or might not think something according to you. Give me citations to substantiate specific claims or get lost. Posturing won’t work.

  9. @56″ I’ve gone from “leading a horse to water” to “forcing the horse’s head underwater while the horse tenaciously holds his breath.”

    are you into water boarding, little thug?

  10. @57: “By definition apartheid is institutionalized racial segregation”

    Ha ha, you’re going to feel silly when you finally look up the definition. Or maybe you won’t feel silly, lol! 😂

    @58: “I don’t really give a ff about how many might or might not think something according to you”

    When it comes to reading judicial opinions, you better care how many do or do not think something, ha ha! Count the votes yourself if you think my count is wrong! 😀

  11. @58 : “definition apartheid is institutionalized racial segregation”

    Yes, ‘apartheid’ is always “institutionalized racial segregation”, — but, as you continually fail at basic logic, I’ll explain this to you, yet again — not all “institutionalized racial segregation” is ‘apartheid’. That’s why Article 3 of CERD differentiates between them. That you do not is your problem, not anyone else’s.

    @53: “Tantamount” does NOT mean “equivalent to,” but rather, “equivalent in seriousness to; virtually the same as.” Note it’s always qualified: “in seriousness,” “virtually”. That’s why the judge used the word, because he could not get the other members of the court to agree with him explicitly on apartheid.

    And again, ‘The Court concludes that the “separation” implemented by Israel in the West Bank between the Palestinian population and settlers constitutes a breach of Article 3 of CERD, without qualifying it as apartheid.’ Please keep repeating that until you’re sure.

  13. @61: Exactly right re: segregation and apartheid. (Less right re: “tantamount,” I think averagebob has got you there, lol!) At the risk of introducing more formal logic to averagebob, a person who does not think in logical terms: “All apartheid involves segregation, not all segregation involves apartheid.” It’s baffling to me why someone who is so, so passionate about apartheid would collapse its meaning to mere segregation, but there I go again with my silly old definitions and logic! 😁

  14. yep

    Wormtongue + his

    sockpuppy/Chatterbott’re

    here to spam away der Schlogg.

    so:

    what’ll

    Give first?

    Schlogg?

    Readers’ comments?

    der fawking Stranger?

    the “right”

    is Powerful

    in these USofAs

    they’ve extorted

    most of the Money

    and’ll Never be Sated

    till they’ve got it All and

    Everyone’s Back in their most

    Proper Places: Stockholm Syndromed

    and Worshipping the tippy-TOP one %.

    happy

    fucking

    Friday, y’alls!

  15. @63: “Tantamount to,” means,”equivalent in seriousness to; virtually the same as.” So, that judge says the segregation Israel practices is as serious as apartheid. That means it isn’t actually apartheid. He had to add that qualifier because, as you noted, a mere two of fifteen judges had voted for apartheid — half of the number who had voted Israel’s occupation isn’t illegal at all. But Bob just itches to use the word, so he simply ignores the qualification.

    “It’s baffling to me why someone who is so, so passionate about apartheid would collapse its meaning to mere segregation…”

    Per Horsehoe Theory, it’s like dealing with Trump and the Birthers* fifteen years ago. No matter how clearly Obama was born in an American state (to an American mother), they always had some ever-shifting rationale for why he couldn’t meet that constitutional requirement for office. (The fun part being Obama’s opponent, John McCain, had NOT been born in any American state.)

    *Worst. Band. Ever.

  16. “Give me citations to substantiate specific claims or get lost”

    crickets

    “you better care how many do or do not think something”

    oh but I do when actual evidence is provided. unsubstantiated claim do not qualify

    “collapse its meaning to mere segregation”

    institutional race segregation (not mere segregation) is the medium that allows systemic oppression based on race/ethnic ground

  17. @65 “a mere two of fifteen judges had voted for apartheid”

    Liar. Show us the record of the vote or you were there perhaps. What a jackass

  18. @67: lol, the record is the separate opinions of every one of the fifteen judges. Read ‘em and weep, ha ha! I’ve even done the reading for you! 😂😂😂

  19. @68: Ha ha, this is so much more spoon-feeding than you deserve, but your comments are so pitiable that I think this qualifies as my act of charity for the day.

    I. Judges Who Found Apartheid

    1. Salam, ¶¶ 21–32

    2. Tlabi, ¶¶ 36–41

    II. Judges Who Did Not Find Apartheid

    1. Brant, ¶ 11

    2. Nolte, ¶¶ 12–15

    3. Iwasawa, ¶ 13

    III. Judges Who Did Not Find Anything Unlawful in Israel’s Occupation

    1. Tomka, ¶¶ 1–64

    2. Abraham, ¶¶ 1–64

    3. Aurescu, ¶¶ 1–64

    4. Sebutinde, ¶¶ 1–92

    IV. Judges Who Are Silent on Apartheid and Segregation

    1. Cleveland

    2. Roberldo

    3. Charlesworth

    4. Yusuf

    5. Bhandari

    6. Xue

    This was a helpful exercise for me, too, in that I now see Judge Bhandari was the only judge who did not file a concurrence or dissent. I had miscounted earlier, because Judges Cleveland, Nolte, and Tomka each filed multiple opinions(!) and I had double-counted Cleveland. Still, this doesn’t affect the vote count, because Cleveland was silent on segregation and apartheid in both of his opinions.

  22. @69 You chose to infer conclusions from the judges’ individual opinions so your belly aching about having to substantiate these inferences is disgraceful especially considering your demonstrated tenuous relationship with the truth.

    I already explained why this was a flawed exercise because a) not saying ‘apartheid’ doesn’t imply disagreement with the court’s finding that Israel violates article 3 of CERD and b) not finding the occupation illegal has no relation to finding the conditions of occupation to be in compliance with human rights law, including apartheid.

    Not only do you mischaracterize the position of some judges but your categories fail to capture the individual opinions either because they are too reductive or they are outright wrong

    It is false to claim that Brant “didn’t find apartheid”: “12 In any event, a régime of racial segregation or apartheid makes the fulfilment of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination impossible. As duly noted by some participants, the discriminatory nature of these policies and practices suppresses the equality, identity and dignity at

    the heart of self-determination”

    Iwasawa moans about inconsistencies in the definitions of apartheid and points out what we already know: the court notes segregation, the violation of article 3 of CERD but does not actually say apartheid. None of it expresses whether he thinks apartheid is occurring or not.

    “Judges Who Did Not Find Anything Unlawful in Israel’s Occupation “

    Not so fast. 3 out of those 4 judges (except for Sebutinde) say that annexation is illegal and indicate that Israel’s policies violate human rights law

    “IV. Judges Who Are Silent on Apartheid and Segregation “

    Xue cites Desmond Tutu verbatim in his condemnation of Israel’s apartheid

    Yusuf, Charlesworth, Robledo all point to Israel’s violation of human rights. Cleveland does as well and says that Israel violates article 3 of CERD

  23. @72: This is about you wanting to throw the accusation of “apartheid” at Israel, even though the ICJ clearly did not find Israel had committed apartheid. That’s all. You’re not really interested in what the ruling did say, but instead you claim it said more than it did, and you persistently show no knowledge of how courts actually work. (In that last, you’re very well in keeping with most of the folks here who throw accusations of war crimes at Israel.)

    “None of it expresses whether he thinks apartheid is occurring or not.”

    OK, if a judge is asked to find if X has occurred, and he finds X has occurred, he writes that X has occurred. If he expresses no opinion on whether X occurred or not, it means he did NOT find that X occurred. Is that simple enough for you?

    ‘It is false to claim that Brant “didn’t find apartheid”: “12 In any event, a régime of racial segregation or apartheid makes the fulfilment of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination impossible. As duly noted by some participants, the discriminatory nature of these policies and practices suppresses the equality, identity and dignity at the heart of self-determination”‘

    Once again, he lists both possible violations of Article 3 of CERD, which is not the same as finding Israel committed apartheid– no matter how many times you have insisted that it is. What he’s really saying is highly critical of Israel, but you’re slobbering SO HARD at the thought of yelling “apartheid,” you fail to notice his actual criticism.

    You’re desperate to throw the accusation of “apartheid” at Israel, so you’re scrounging through opinions which clearly do not support an accusation of apartheid against Israel, twisting what you can find into what you (wrongly) believe to be a justification for using the word “apartheid” against Israel. All of this about an ICJ ruling which any critic of Israel should be happy to read.

    All you’re really telling us here is 1) you really don’t have much respect for the ICJ, and 2) you have an apparently pathological hatred of Israel.

  24. “you

    have an

    apparently path-

    ological hatred of Israel.”

    there goes

    Wormtongue

    twisting words

    to fit wormmy’s

    insidious narrative

    of ‘you’re either For

    Genocide or you Hate

    (Pathologically!) Israel.’

  26. @72: You’re dead wrong on Brant. In ¶11 he notes that the court’s findings support a determination of segregation, but he also notes that the court itself failed to wade into the difference between segregation and apartheid. Brant’s opinion confirms that we’ve gotten to segregation and neither confirms nor denies that we’ve also gotten to apartheid. Brant’s opinion is a finding of segregation, but it is not a finding of apartheid.

    (It’s also not an exoneration of apartheid. But a failure to exonerate is not a finding of culpability. Could this be the source of your confusion?)

    Brant’s ¶12, which you’ve latched onto without addressing his ¶11, notes that EITHER segregation OR apartheid is enough to sustain a violation of the convention. Hopefully even you are finally beginning to recognize this as a correct statement of the law. But remember, Brant just got done saying that the court’s findings are sufficient to support segregation but are silent as to apartheid. Sorry, bruh, but a judge explicitly saying that the court is NOT reaching the question of apartheid in this case isn’t a judge who is actually, secretly finding apartheid in this case, lol! Segregation is still illegal, so Israel still loses because of segregation. But they don’t lose because of apartheid.

    Likewise, Iwasawa also says that the court’s judge is not a finding of apartheid. Your hypothesis that he, too, secretly thinks apartheid is occurring is not borne out in his opinion. Iwasawa says the court’s opinion condemns Israel’s discrimination “without qualifying it as apartheid.” You can’t read read that statement and say, “Oh, Iwasawa might secretly be finding apartheid.” If Iwasawa thought apartheid was going on, he would have said apartheid was going on, and we know this because he did say that segregation and discrimination are going on. Missing from Iwasawa’s list? Apartheid, lol!

    For the four judges, they all say the occupation is legal but three of them say annexation is not legal. If you were harping on annexation instead of apartheid, you’d have a real winning argument. Maybe pick a different battle, lol? I’d even agree with you on annexation!

    Xue’s Tutu quote is not a finding of apartheid. Even the Tutu quote itself doesn’t say Israel is actually committing apartheid, lol!

    The remaining silent six judges all discuss various illegalities unrelated to apartheid. We already know they all found CERD violations because they voted with the majority. But none of them say apartheid. Conceivably, as I spoon-fed you earlier, they might all believe there’s apartheid but just chose not to say so. But if that were the case, the majority opinion would have said apartheid, and Salam wouldn’t have needed his concurrence. If there were 8 votes for apartheid, we’d have seen the words “Israel committed apartheid” somewhere in the majority opinion. Instead we see “Israel violated the convention against segregation and apartheid,” which is not a finding of apartheid.

    I think Tensorna’s got your number in @73. The ICJ’s majority opinion should have been cause for you to rejoice. It gives you so, so much to work with in your project of Israel-bashing. But the word “apartheid” gives you such a quiver that you can’t stop repeating it, even if it’s not the opinion of the court.

    You don’t hit a home run every time you go to bat. Sometimes the best you can do is put a runner on base and try to hit him home with the next batter. Salam knows it, and you can see him teeing up for the next play. Apartheid’s not off the table, this just wasn’t the right case for it. Get a grip already, lol!

  29. @73 I have been saying that Israel is committing apartheid literally for decades so I am obviously not waiting for the ICJ but It is great that they finally decided to join the chorus. Apartheid occurring in the occupied territories is not as controversial as you claim it to be; many Jews themselves both in the US and Israel characterizes the situation as such but good propagandists like yourselves have to keep sowing doubt.

    “If he expresses no opinion on whether X occurred or not, it means he did NOT find that X occurred.”

    Not true at all. Personal opinions most often discuss the ways in which a judge descents or has differences with the court’s ruling so expressing no opinion in general shows agreement with the court, which in this case is that Israel is enforcing racial segregation that results in widespread human rights violation, and thus violation of article 3 of CERD (the state’s duty to ban racial segregation and apartheid)

    People can decide for themselves whether or not individual judges agree with the court’s opinion if they are so inclined.. Here is link to individual opinions about the case:

    https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186

  30. @79: “Israel is enforcing racial segregation that results in widespread human rights violation, and thus violation of article 3 of CERD (the state’s duty to ban racial segregation and apartheid)”

    Stop! Stop right there! That’s it, don’t say another word! You’ve got it, Averagebob, you’ve finally got it! That is the holding of the court! Not apartheid, just what you said, “racial segregation that results in widespread human rights violation!” I am positively giddy with excitement to see you finally state the court’s opinion correctly! 😄😄😄

    (I am slightly perturbed to read the first part of your post “ICJ … finally decided to join the chorus [on apartheid.]” No! No, Averagebob, no! Not what happened! The rest of your post was so good, why did you have to add this? 😝 I’m going to do you a favor and pretend you didn’t say it! 😂)

    I’m so happy for your newfound understanding that I will even throw you a treat. There is another international tribunal for you to read up on regarding apartheid. The Commission on the Eradication of Racial Discrimination (CERD) is working its way through the case of Palestine v. Israel. Palestine has explicitly asked the Commission to issue an affirmative finding of apartheid, not just an undifferentiated finding of a violation of the segregation-and-apartheid provision of the convention. The Commission’s rulings in other cases have explicitly found that segregation and apartheid AREN’T the same thing, so the Commission will be highly inclined to make the distinction when it finally issues its ruling. I predict it will make the distinction. Indeed, Judge Salam over on the ICJ was all but begging it to…what I meant by teeing up the next play. So you may yet get your precious apartheid ruling! Of course, the ruling may go against you, so don’t get too giggly yet 😄

  32. @80 Quit truncating my comments to give them different meaning. I said: ” Israel is enforcing racial segregation that results in widespread human rights violation, and thus violation of article 3 of CERD (the state’s duty to ban racial segregation and apartheid)”

    As expressed previously it is the systemic, institutionalized nature of racial segregation that makes it a system of apartheid so if Israel is enforcing racial segregation according to rules it made up, it is systemic, thus it is apartheid.

    but we are going in circles due to your unwillingness to acknowledge my argument.

  33. @82: Oh no! You were so close! But I’m not failing to acknowledge your argument, it’s simply that your argument is wrong, lol! It looks like I extended my charity too far in @82, thinking you had finally understood the judicial opinion you’ve been reading all this time. Ah well, chin up, Professor Thumpus, some students will always slip through the cracks, no matter how much tutoring you give them.

  34. @82: We could have had a conversation on what the ICJ did find, and what we, as Americans, could or should do about it. But you simply can’t overcome your burning desire to accuse Israel of apartheid, no matter how many times we explain the ICJ did not find apartheid. So, any hope of consensus we might have reached on Israel’s abuses of Palestinians, as found by the ICJ, has been lost. (Um, congratulations?)

    Back @31, when I initiated your festival of rank distortion concerning the ICJ’s ruling, I noted “genocide” would likely be your next such dishonest intellectual adventure. As with “apartheid,” your constant and flagrant abuse of the word “genocide” has also blocked any progress in our civic dialog here regarding the conflict. (You’ve had plenty of help from the Stranger, and other commenters here, of course.) In the case of both words, I’m not going to budge on their actual meanings. And, as I speculate the ICJ will also decline to find Israel guilty of “genocide,” I expect you’ll return with your same bag of dishonest rhetorical tricks then, as well. Again, there’s a lot Israel has done wrong, starting at least with Bibi enabling Hamas, but we’ll find no consensus so long as you try to enforce your personal redefinitions of common words.

    @79: “I have been saying that Israel is committing apartheid literally for decades…”

    I don’t care what you say, and — yet again — the ICJ has not agreed with you. (Those two statements have a very tight causal relation.)

    If you want to blather on and on and on and on and on about a claim the Moon is made of green cheese, that’s your problem, not mine. If you claim NASA agrees with you on that, then you’ll get a fight from me. (While I expect you’ll neither understand the difference between those two claims, nor grasp the analogy, I did want to disabuse you of your notion that your opinion, in and of itself, actually counts for anything.)

Comments are closed.