#REUTERS-LEGAL

[petnews2day]

Judges skeptical that employer required to allow veteran's service dog

New Post has been published on https://petn.ws/zUEoS

Judges skeptical that employer required to allow veteran's service dog

Summary Law firms Related documents Union Pacific denied veteran’s bid to bring service dog to work Judge said employers don’t have to mitigate symptoms of disabilities Appeals panel concerned about expanding protections for workers (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court panel on Tuesday seemed hesitant to revive a Union Pacific Railroad engineer’s claim that he […]

See full article at https://petn.ws/zUEoS #DogNews #Bitter, #Intent, #Legal, #NRLPAOAPP, #NRLPAOEMP, #NRLPAOHLT, #REUTERSLEGAL, #Us

[reportwire]

Trump defied Jan 6 committee subpoena, panel says

Trump defied Jan 6 committee subpoena, panel says

Nov 14 (Reuters) – Former President Donald Trump did not show up for deposition testimony before the congressional committee investigating his supporters’ attack on the U.S. Capitol last year, the panel said on Monday. In doing so Trump defied a subpoena issued by the panel in October, Chair Bennie Thompson, a Democrat, and co-Chair Liz Cheney, a Republican, said in a joint statement. “The truth…

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Exclusive: Some US officials say in internal memo Israel may be violating international law in Gaza | Reuters

Some senior U.S. officials have advised Secretary of State Antony Blinken that they do not find "credible or reliable" Israel's assurances that it is using U.S.-supplied weapons in accordance with international humanitarian law, according to an internal State Department memo reviewed by Reuters.

Other officials upheld support for Israel's representation.

Under a National Security Memorandum (NSM) issued by President Joe Biden in February, Blinken must report to Congress by May 8 whether he finds credible Israel's assurances that its use of U.S. weapons does not violate U.S. or international law.

By March 24, at least seven State Department bureaus had sent in their contributions to an initial "options memo" to Blinken. Parts of the memo, which has not been previously reported, were classified.

The submissions to the memo provide the most extensive picture to date of the divisions inside the State Department over whether Israel might be violating international humanitarian law in Gaza.

"Some components in the department favored accepting Israel's assurances, some favored rejecting them and some took no position," a U.S. official said.

A joint submission from four bureaus - Democracy Human Rights & Labor; Population, Refugees and Migration; Global Criminal Justice and International Organization Affairs – raised "serious concern over non-compliance" with international humanitarian law during Israel's prosecution of the Gaza war.

The assessment from the four bureaus said Israel's assurances were "neither credible nor reliable." It cited eight examples of Israeli military actions that the officials said raise "serious questions" about potential violations of international humanitarian law.

These included repeatedly striking protected sites and civilian infrastructure; "unconscionably high levels of civilian harm to military advantage"; taking little action to investigate violations or to hold to account those responsible for significant civilian harm and "killing humanitarian workers and journalists at an unprecedented rate."

The assessment from the four bureaus also cited 11 instances of Israeli military actions the officials said "arbitrarily restrict humanitarian aid," including rejecting entire trucks of aid due to a single "dual-use" item, "artificial" limitations on inspections as well as repeated attacks on humanitarian sites that should not be hit.

Another submission to the memo reviewed by Reuters, from the bureau of Political and Military Affairs, which deals with U.S. military assistance and arms transfers, warned Blinken that suspending U.S. weapons would limit Israel's ability to meet potential threats outside its airspace and require Washington to re-evaluate "all ongoing and future sales to other countries in the region."

Any suspension of U.S. arms sales would invite "provocations" by Iran and aligned militias, the bureau said in its submission, illustrating the push-and-pull inside the department as it prepares to report to Congress.

The submission did not directly address Israel's assurances.

Inputs to the memo from the Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism and U.S. ambassador to Israel Jack Lew said they assessed Israel's assurances as credible and reliable, a second U.S. official told Reuters.

The State Department's legal bureau, known as the Office of the Legal Adviser, "did not take a substantive position" on the credibility of Israel's assurances, a source familiar with the matter said.

State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said the agency doesn't comment on leaked documents.

"On complex issues, the Secretary often hears a diverse range of views from within the Department, and he takes all of those views into consideration," Miller said.

MAY 8 REPORT TO CONGRESS

When asked about the memo, an Israeli official said: "Israel is fully committed to its commitments and their implementation, among them the assurances given to the U.S. government."

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Biden administration officials repeatedly have said they have not found Israel in violation of international law.

Blinken has seen all of the bureau assessments about Israel's pledges, the second U.S. official said.

Matthew Miller on March 25 said the department received the pledges. However, the State Department is not expected to render its complete assessment of credibility until the May 8 report to Congress.

Further deliberations between the department's bureaus are underway ahead of the report's deadline, the U.S. official said.

USAID also provided input to the memo. "The killing of nearly 32,000 people, of which the GOI (Government of Israel) itself assesses roughly two-thirds are civilian, may well amount to a violation of the international humanitarian law requirement," USAID officials wrote in the submission.

USAID does not comment on leaked documents, a USAID spokesperson said.

The warnings about Israel's possible breaches of international humanitarian law made by some senior State Department officials come as Israel is vowing to launch a military offensive into Rafah, the southern-most pocket of the Gaza Strip that is home to over a million people displaced by the war, despite repeated warnings from Washington not to do so.

Israel's military conduct has come under increasing scrutiny as its forces have killed 34,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to the enclave's health authorities, most of them women and children.

Israel's assault was launched in response to the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, in which Israel says 1,200 people were killed and 250 others taken hostage.

The National Security Memorandum was issued in early February after Democratic lawmakers began questioning whether Israel was abiding by international law.

The memorandum imposed no new legal requirements but asked the State Department to demand written assurances from countries receiving U.S.-funded weapons that they are not violating international humanitarian law or blocking U.S. humanitarian assistance.

It also required the administration to submit an annual report to Congress to assess whether countries are adhering to international law and not impeding the flow of humanitarian aid.

If Israel's assurances are called into question, Biden would have the option to "remediate" the situation through actions ranging from seeking fresh assurances to suspending further U.S. weapons transfers, according to the memorandum.

Biden can suspend or put conditions on U.S. weapons transfers at any time.

He has so far resisted calls from rights groups, left-leaning Democrats and Arab American groups to do so.

But earlier this month he threatened for the first time to put conditions on the transfer of U.S. weapons to Israel, if it does not take concrete steps to improve the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza.

(This story has been refiled to remove an extraneous paragraph)

[und-dann-war-es-fast-gut]

Wenn er NICHT mit DIR ins Kino will, ist das ein Zeichen für eine queere Storyline und weil Nolin einmal zusammen im Kino waren, konnte das nichts werden…

[engineering-world]

Thomson Reuters & HighQ: Legal Business Management

Thomson Reuters, HighQ & Legal Tracker in the UAE, KSA, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and MENA. We offer Legal Business and Legal Spend Management

[headlinehorizon]

Thomson Reuters Unveils Groundbreaking AI Tools for Legal Research

Discover the latest news from Thomson Reuters as they revolutionize legal research with their state-of-the-art AI tools.

[randombusinessoflawthoughts]

REPORT: Dynamic Law Firms consistently invest more in Business Development than Static Law Firms

The numbers have been crunched and the results are in: ‘Dynamic Law Firms’ invest considerably more in their business development and marketing activities/departments than static firms are willing to do. According to the latest (8th) iteration of Thomson Reuters Institute’s 2023 Dynamic Law Firms Report, Dynamic Law Firms consistently invest greater sums in their business development and…

[zvaigzdelasas]

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered billionaire Elon Musk on Wednesday to name a legal representative for his messaging platform X in Brazil within 24 hours or face the site's suspension in the country, a court decision showed.

Lol [29 Aug 24]

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A national watchdog group has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Republican U.S. Rep. George Santos for allegedly violating numerous campaign finance laws during his successful run for Congress.

The Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan campaign watchdog organization, filed the complaint with the FEC on Monday. The group accuses the Santos campaign of allegedly violating three counts of campaign finance laws, including one tied to a $705,000 loan the lawmaker made to his campaign.

“It is far more likely, instead, that after failing to win his 2020 bid for Congress, Santos and other unknown persons worked out a scheme to surreptitiously — and illegally — funnel money into his 2022 campaign,” the complaint reads. “The concealed true source behind $705,000 in contributions to Santos’s campaign could be a corporation or foreign national — both of which are categorically barred from contributing to federal candidates.”

The FEC didn’t immediately return a request for comment. A Santos spokeswoman referred CNBC to the congressman’s attorneys. A Santos attorney did not return a request for comment.

Santos is under scrutiny by congressional lawmakers and federal authorities for lying and embellishing key elements of his resume during his 2022 campaign for New York’s 3rd Congressional District. Prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York are examining Santos’ finances, including potential irregularities involving financial disclosures and loans Santos made to his campaign while he was running for Congress, according to NBC News.

Santos has admitted in an interview with City & State New York that he embellished his resume. While he’s apologized to anyone “disappointed by resume embellishments,” he vehemently denies committing any crimes.

The Campaign Legal Center claims that the loan he made to his campaign may have come from a straw donor. Santos’ latest financial disclosure says he made $750,000 from 2021 through 2022 from his company, the Devolder Organization. Santos told WABC radio host John Catsimatidis, who also donated to Santos, that the loan came from “money I paid myself through the Devolder Organization.”

The watchdog accuses Santos of possibly concealing the true source of the money that his campaign labeled as a loan. The group also accuses Santos’ campaign of falsifying its reported disbursements and using campaign funds to pay for personal expenses.

“George Santos has lied to voters about a lot of things, but while lying about your background might not be illegal, deceiving voters about your campaign’s funding and spending is a serious violation of federal law,” Adav Noti, legal director at the Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement. “That is what we are asking the Federal Election Commission to investigate. As the agency responsible for enforcing America’s campaign finance laws, the FEC owes it to the public to find out the truth about how George Santos raised and spent the money he used to run for public office, and to ensure accountability for Santos’s illegal conduct.”

U.S. Representative George Santos, who lied about much of his resume and life story, will be removed from Congress if found to have broken campaign finance laws, fellow Republican and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said on Sunday.

"He's a bad guy," Comer said on CNN's "State of the Union" program. "It's not up to me or any other member of Congress to determine whether he can be kicked out for lying. Now, if he broke campaign finance laws, then he will be removed from Congress."

Santos has repeatedly refused to resign, even as pressure has grown within his own party for him to do so. On Thursday, he said he would vacate his New York City-area seat only if he loses the next election.

More than a dozen Republicans officials, many of them from Santos' district, which covers parts of Queens and Long Island, have demanded the resignation of the newly elected congressman. At least six of his fellow Republican representatives from New York have joined the calls for him to step down.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has said he will leave Santos' fate to the Ethics Committee and voters.

Democratic Representative Dan Goldman said he wrote on Sunday to McCarthy, Representative Elise Stefanik, the Republican conference chairwoman, and Dan Conston, head of the Congressional Leadership Fund, a House Republican fundraising group, about a New York Times report that they were aware of Santos' fabrications before the November election. He urged them to cooperate with any ethics investigation into the matter.

"It is one thing for a candidate such as Mr. Santos to induce voters to support him based on a web of lies," Goldman wrote in his letter. "But it is altogether something else if the top levels of Republican leadership knew about Mr. Santos' lies during the campaign and chose to be complicit."

McCarthy, Stefanik's office and the Congressional Leadership Fund did not immediately reply to requests for comment.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority on Wednesday appeared to ready to limit judicial power to overrule voting policies crafted by state politicians but might not go as far as Republican North Carolina lawmakers want in a case the liberal Justices painted as a threat to American democratic norms.

The Court heard arguments in a case the state lawmakers have used to try to persuade the Justices to endorse a contentious legal theory gaining traction in conservative legal circles that would prevent state courts from reviewing the legality of actions by state legislatures regulating federal elections.

The Republican lawmakers are appealing the top North Carolina Court's decision to throw out the map they devised for the state's 14 U.S. House of Representatives districts as unlawfully biased against Democratic voters. Another state court then replaced that map with one drawn by a bipartisan group of experts.

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, and its most conservative Justices including Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch appeared willing to embrace the "independent state legislature" doctrine presented by the Republican legislators.

While the conservative Justices in general asked questions that indicated skepticism toward the state court actions, some signaled that the Republican argument that state constitutions cannot constrain the power of legislatures in setting rules for congressional and presidential elections might go too far.

Under the once-marginal legal theory they are now promoting, the lawmakers argue that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures - and not other entities such as state courts - authority over election rules and electoral district maps.

The Court's liberal Justices suggested the doctrine could free legislatures to adopt all manner of voting restrictions. Lawyers arguing against it also said it could sow confusion by allowing voting rules that vary between state and federal contests.

"This is a proposal that gets rid of the normal checks and balances on the way big governmental decisions are made in this country," liberal Justice Elena Kagan said, referring to the interaction between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. "And you might think that it gets rid of all those checks and balances at exactly the time when they are needed most."

America is sharply divided over voting rights. Republican-led state legislatures have pursued new voting restrictions in the aftermath of Republican former President Donald Trump's false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him through widespread voting fraud.

The Court's eventual decision, due by the end of June, could apply to 2024 elections including the U.S. presidential race.

During the three-hour argument, the Justices touched on the issue of enabling federal courts to review state court actions to ensure that judges do not behave like legislators or unfairly apply vague state constitutional provisions such as those requiring free and fair elections to disempower lawmakers.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts wondered whether such broadly worded provisions provide proper "standards and guidelines" for state courts to apply.

ALITO WEIGHS IN

Alito dismissed arguments that legislatures would be unchecked if the Republican position carried the day.

"Under any circumstances, no matter what we say the 'Elections Clause' means, Congress can always come in and establish the manner of conducting congressional elections," Alito said, referring to the Constitution's elections language.

The doctrine is based in part on the Constitution's statement that the "times, places and manner" of federal elections "shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." The Republican lawmakers argued that the state court usurped the North Carolina General Assembly's authority under that provision to regulate federal elections.

Kagan said the theory would free state legislators to engage in the "most extreme forms of gerrymandering" - drawing electoral districts to unfairly improve a party's election chances - while enacting "all manner of restrictions on voting," noting that lawmakers by virtue of coveting re-election may have incentives to suppress, dilute and negate votes.

Kagan said the theory also could let legislatures insert themselves into the process of determining winners in federal elections - a sensitive issue following the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack by Trump supporters who sought to block congressional certification of Biden's 2020 election victory.

'HISTORICAL PRACTICE'

Some conservative Justices appeared to balk at aspects of the Republican arguments.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized the "historical practice" that "nearly all state constitutions regulate federal elections in some way." Roberts said another check on a legislature's power - a state governor's veto - "significantly undermines the argument that it can do whatever it wants."

David Thompson, arguing for the North Carolina lawmakers, said the Constitution "requires state legislatures specifically to perform the federal function of prescribing regulations for federal elections. States lack the authority to restrict the legislature's substantive discretion when performing this federal function."

Kavanaugh told Thompson that his position on the theory's breadth "seems to go further" than that conceived by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a concurrence to a 2000 ruling deciding a presidential election's outcome - an opinion seeing state courts as exceeding their authority on federal elections.

North Carolina's Department of Justice is defending the state high court's February ruling alongside the voters and voting rights groups that challenged the map approved by the legislature in November 2021. They are backed by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration.

Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing for Biden's administration, said empowering state legislatures the way the Republicans want would "wreak havoc in the administration of elections across the nation" and cause federal courts to become flooded with lawsuits concerning state-administered elections.

[allthegeopolitics]

Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz said on Sunday he had ordered his ministry to start legal proceedings against French President Emmanuel Macron after Paris banned Israeli firms from participating in an upcoming military naval trade show, Reuters reports. The decision to bar Israeli firms is the latest incident in a row fuelled by the Macron government’s unease over Israel’s conduct in the wars in Gaza and Lebanon. Euronaval, organiser of the Nov. 4-7 event in Paris, said in a statement last week that the French government had informed it that Israeli delegations were not allowed to exhibit stands or show equipment, but could attend the trade show. The decision affected seven firms, it said.

Continue Reading.

[attheexactlyrighttimeandplace]

For the people who still think the colony of Israel has a right to defend itself:

They're not defending anything, they're just having fun killing:

Update 1 (17/10/2023) for the confused and sceptics :

Update 2 (10/22/2023): To add some context to this post following Reuters (direct link to article) attempt to verify the reality of the IDF Facebook post.

In fact, Reuters failed to verify anything: as the agency admitted in its article, its journalist "could not find the impostor's Facebook account or the publication on the platform social network".

They then contacted "a spokesperson for the IDF", who told them that " the Facebook post was not shared by one of its official accounts. He added there was only one official IDF Facebook page in Arabic that carries a verification tick "

A Reuters reporter also contacted"a representative for Meta, Facebook’s parent company, told Reuters the page was removed".

In this total absence of material evidence, and relying solely on the statements of these two sources which are the least reliable when it comes to commenting and sharing information and facts about the war against the Palestinians (the Israeli army is party to the conflict therefore It is biased and will protect its agents and soldiers- and Facebook has a history of censoring Palestinian content that could be used to document violence and help legally qualify zionist crimes).

Reuters came to this hasty conclusion:

Their main arguments are that

The Israeli occupation army never admitted to bombing the hospital and blamed Islamic Jihad, so it had no reason to celebrate.

Reuters journalists conveniently ignore the timeline. The IDF message welcoming the bombing of the Baptist hospital in Gaza was published immediately after the attack, while the controversy over the perpetrators of the attack began a few hours after its deletion.

Until the controversy, no one wondered who was behind the attack. The zionist army has always publicly assumed its crimes: it even ordered (according to the clerics who were in charge of the administration of the hospital) on several occasions the hospital to evacuate, knowing perfectly well that it was impossible. It was only when outrage became widespread that western media, including Reuters, began to question the origins of the strike. There's a post on Tumblr that pulls together the subtle changes in headlines to make it seem like Israel never took credit for the attack (even though it destroyed different 2 floors of the hospital a few days before the biggest attack).

There are other videos on Mohammed El Kurd's Twitter account showing the zionist army celebrating its strikes. There are videos on social media of zionist soldiers humiliating prisoners in their custody, so gloating on social media is not a new practice for them.

There is no reason why they should not celebrate what they consider a victory: their ministers have already publicly and clearly stated that civilians who do not leave northern Gaza, whatever their reasons, will be assimilated to Hamas fighters. So everything is consistent; in their minds, hitting innocent and defenseless civilians is legitimate and they are happy about it.

On its Twitter account, the Israeli military removed a video that purported to prove that Islamic Jihad carried out the attack, but ultimately did not prove its claims. So they also have a habit of deleting their own content when they realize that it exposes them more than it helps them.

Other journalists (Al Jazeera uses its own images: it is the only media that remained in Gaza and they filmed all the attacks, information from Channel 4) and independent experts on weapons of war and geolocation worked on the question of identifying the perpetrators of the bombing of the hospital. So far, their preliminary conclusion is that the Israeli military's claims do not match the facts and material evidence on the ground.

Full details of this debate are on the X/Twitter accounts of Lowkey and Mohammed El-Kurd (look for posts made on October 17).

2. I don't really know how Facebook/Meta works: I never had an account on it (I mean I never used it properly: I opened an account years ago, exclusively to follow the activity of a group that I was part of in life but closed it after a few weeks without interacting beyond a few likes), but on Twitter you can hide the checkmark.

Even if the checkmark cannot be hidden, there is nothing in the Reuters "report" to indicate that the Zionist army does not maintain multiple accounts - some with checkmarks and some without - and does not delete accounts that are not officials when it does not suit their interests.

They have a history of spreading fake news: from rumors about 40 beheaded babies, to accusing Palestinians of bombing themselves, to creating fake documents to accuse Hamas of planning attacks on primary schools while manipulating parents by buying YT ads shown during videos aimed at children to improve their image damaged by their violence with families, and to justify the harm they do to the children of Gaza.

I'm only making this long argument because Lowkey and Mohammed El-Kurd deleted the tweets I reposted and I think they shouldn't have done so. I understand why: it actually seems like an insignificant speck in an ocean of real crimes, but I personally consider it symbolic and indicative of the true and greater zionist project: genocide.

Genocide in international law is based on proof of intent to destroy a group, and the zionist army's mocking Facebook post establishes beyond doubt that nothing is accidental on the zionist side, everything is premeditated and based on their superiority complex over the Palestinian people.

[afeelgoodblog]

The Best News of Last Week - June 6, 2023

1. Biden orders 20-year ban on oil, gas drilling around tribal site in New Mexico

Hundreds of square miles in New Mexico will be withdrawn from further oil and gas production for the next 20 years on the outskirts of Chaco Culture National Historical Park that tribal communities consider sacred, the Biden administration ordered Friday.

The new order from Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland applies to public lands and associated mineral rights within a 10-mile (16-kilometer) radius of the park. It does not apply to entities that are privately, state- or tribal-owned. Existing leases won’t be impacted either.

2. Groundbreaking Israeli cancer treatment has 90% success rate

An experimental treatment developed at Israel's Hadassah-University Medical Center has a 90% success rate at bringing patients with multiple myeloma into remission.

The treatment is based on genetic engineering technology. They have used a genetic engineering technology called CAR-T, or Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy, which boosts the patient’s own immune system to destroy the cancer. More than 90% of the 74 patients treated at Hadassah went into complete remission, the oncologists said.

3. Federal Judge Makes History in Holding That Border Searches of Cell Phones Require a Warrant

With United States v. Smith, a district court judge in New York made history by being the first court to rule that a warrant is required for a cell phone search at the border, “absent exigent circumstances”. For a century, the Supreme Court has recognized a border search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

4. Indigenous-led bison repopulation projects are helping the animal thrive again in Alberta

Indigenous-led efforts are reintroducing bison to their ancestral lands in Alberta, bringing back an iconic species that was nearly extinct. These reintroduction projects, such as the one led by the Tsuut'ina Nation, have witnessed the positive impact on the bison population and the surrounding wildlife.

The historical decline of bison numbers was due to overhunting and government policies that forced Indigenous peoples onto reserves. These initiatives aim to restore ecological integrity while fostering spiritual and cultural connections with the land and animals. Successful results have been observed in projects like Banff National Park, where the bison population has grown from 16 to nearly 100, providing inspiration for future wilding efforts.

5. Breakthrough in disease affecting one in nine women

Sydney researchers have made a world-first leap forward that could change the treatment of endometriosis and improve the health of women living with the painful and debilitating disease. Researchers from Sydney's Royal Hospital for Women have grown tissue from every known type of endometriosis, observing changes and comparing how they respond to treatments.

It means researchers will be able to vary treatments from different types of endometriosis, determining whether a woman will need fertility treatments.

6. Latvia just elected the first openly gay head of state in Europe

The country’s parliament elected Edgars Rinkēvičs to be its next president, Reuters reported prime minister Krišjānis Kariņš saying.

Rinkēvičs publicly came out as gay in November 2014, posting on Twitter: “I proudly announce I am gay… Good luck all of you.” In a second tweet at the time, he spoke about improving the legal status of same-sex relationships, saying Latvia needed to create a legal framework for all kinds of partnerships.

7. France bans short haul flights

The introduction of France’s short-haul flight ban has renewed calls for Europe to cut down on journeys that could be made by train. Last week France officially introduced its ban on short-haul flights.

The final version of the law means that journeys which can be taken in under 2.5 hours by train can’t be taken by plane. There also needs to be enough trains throughout the day that travellers can spend at least eight hours at their destination.

----

That's it for this week :)

This newsletter will always be free. If you liked this post you can support me with a small kofi donation:

BUY ME A COFFEE ❤️

Also don’t forget to reblog.

SUBCRIBE HERE for more good news in your inbox

[phoenixyfriend]

Can you explain the Iran-Israel situation please?

Alright, let's get to it. Please note that I'm writing this on mobile during my lunch break, so I can't include reference/source links as much as I'd like. Thankfully, most of what I'm going to be telling you should be easily located by searching for an article on one of the following: APNews, Reuters, BBC Global News Podcast, Democracy Now!, NPR, or The New York Times. Long-term background is probably best found in videos by the YouTube channels Real Life Lore or tldr global news, or on Wikipedia if you prefer text.

The short version: Israel attacked Iran's consulate in Syria to get at some of the military commanders that were there, which is legally equivalent to attacking Iran itself. Iran responded by sending about 300 bombs at Israel, most of which were shot down in transit. Given that they still called it a success, even though it seems only one person was even hurt, my understanding is that it's very likely that they only intended the rockets to be a show of force, rather than an actual escalation, because Iran can't afford a war right now.

To support my blogging so I can move out of my parents’ house, I do have a ko-fi. Alternately, you can donate to one of the charities I list in this post OR this post.

The long version:

Okay, let's start with some background on Israel, then Iran. This is... a lot, so if you already know the broad strokes skip down to 2023.

Israel was established following WWII by the English and French, following borders the two countries had secretly drawn up decades earlier in the Sykes-Picot agreement. The intent was to give the Jewish people a place to go... or, depending on who you ask, a place to send them. Their ancestral homeland was viewed as the best choice, sort of like a deportation millennia after a diaspora. Given that WWII had just ended by the time Sykes-Picot was actually put into effect, 'getting out of Europe' was something a lot of Jews were given to agree with.

The Arab world was not happy, as that land had belonged to the Ottomans for centuries, and had long since 'naturalized' to being Arab. I'm not going to pretend to know the nuances to when people do or do not consider Palestine to have been its own nation; it was an Ottoman state until WWI, at which point it came under British control for just under three decades, and that period is known as the British Mandate of Palestine; it ended after WWII, with the creation of Israel. Palestine's land and people have sort of just been punted around from one colonizer to another for centuries.

Iran is the current form of what was once Persia. They were an empire for a very long time, and were a unitary monarchy up until the early 20th century; in 1925, Iran elected a Prime Minister who was then declared the monarch. The following several decades had Iran's monarchy slowly weakened, and occasionally beset by foreign interventions, including a covert coup by the US and UK in 1953. The country also became more corrupt throughout the 1970s due to economic policy failing to control inflation in the face of rising oil prices.

In 1979, there was a revolution that overthrew the monarchy and the elected government, replacing the system with a theocracy and declaring Iran to be an Islamic Republic, with the head of state being a religious authority, rather than an elected one. This was not popular with... most countries. 1980 saw the closure of all universities (reopened in 1983 with government-approved curriculums), as well as the taking of over fifty American hostages from the US Embassy in Iran. You may have heard about that in the context of Ronald Reagan encouraging Iran to keep the hostages until the end of Carter's term in order to force the election.

So, the West didn't like having an Islamic state because it claims to like democracy, and also because the Islamic state was explicitly anti-American and this has some Bad Effects on oil prices. The Soviets didn't like having an Islamic State because a theocracy goes directly against a lot of communist values (or at least the values they claim to have), and weakened any influence their supposedly secular union could have on Iran and the wider middle east. The other countries in the Arab world, many of them still monarchies, didn't like the Islamic republic because if the revolution spread, then it was possible their monarchies would be overthrown as well.

(Except Oman, which is not worried, but that's the exception, not the rule.)

This is not a baseless worry, because Iran has stated that this is its goal for the Arab world. Overthrow the monarchies, overthrow the elected governments, Islamic Rule for everyone. That is the purpose of its proxies, like Hezbollah (Lebanon), the Houthis (Yemen), and Hamas (Palestine), along with less well-known groups like the Salafi Jihadists in Mali, who are formally under the umbrella of al-Quaeda, which Iran denies having any relation to but is suspected of funding. In areas where these proxy groups have gained power, they are liable to enact hard Shari'a law such as has happened in Northern Mali and other parts of the Sahel region.

While other conflicts have occurred in these countries, I think the above is most relevant.

Israel has repeatedly attacked, or been attacked by, other nations in the middle east, as they are viewed as having taken over land that is not theirs, and as being a puppet of the US government. The biggest conflicts have been 1947-1948, 1968/1973, and 2014.

And then, of course, 2023.

Now, Iran, more than any other nation in the Middle East, hates Israel. They have for a very long time, viewing them as an affront to the goal of spreading Islam across the whole of the middle east, and as being a front and a staging ground for the United States and other Western powers. Two common refrains in the slogans of Iran and its proxies are "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."

Due to Iran's military power and virulence towards Israel, the United States has been funneling money to Israel for decades. It has more generally been to defend itself against the Arab world at large, but it has narrowed over the decades to being about Iran and its proxies as relations have normalized with other nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Cue October 7th, 2023. Hamas invades Israeli towns, kills some people, and takes others as hostage. Israel retaliates, and the conflict ramps up into what is by now tens of thousands of dead, some half of which are children.

In this time, Hamas's allies are, by definition, Iran and the other proxy forces. Hezbollah, being in Lebanon, share a border with Israel's north. They have been trading rocket fire across the border in waves for most of the past six months. The Houthis, down in Yemen, claim to be attacking the passing cargo ships in order to support Palestine. Given that the attacks often seem indiscriminate, and that the Houthi's control over their portion of Yemen is waning in the face of their poor governance, this is... debatable. It's their official reason, but given that "let's attack passing ships, claiming that we only attack Israeli or American ships and that it is to support Palestine" is rallying support domestically for their regime, it does seem to be more of a political move to garner support at home than about supporting Palestine.

Iran, however, has not attacked Israel. They've spoken out about it, yes, but they haven't done anything because nobody wants a regional war. Nobody can afford it right now. Iran is dealing with a domestic crisis due to oil subsidies bleeding the states' coffers dry, and the aging Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of Iran, refusing to pick a successor. They are looking at both an economic crisis and succession crisis, and a regional war would fuck up both situations further. Iran funds most of its proxies, and they can't do that, and fight a war on top of it, while their economy is in its current state. Pure self preservation says they don't want a war, especially with the ongoing unrest that's been going on for... well, basically since the revolution, but especially since the death of Mahsa Amini.

Meanwhile, in Israel, Netanyahu has been looking at corruption charges and legal issues since before the Hamas attack. It's generally agreed that if Israel were to hold new elections right now, he would lose and be replaced, and also immediately taken to court. Netanyahu wants to stay in power, and as long as the war on Hamas lasts, he is unlikely to get voted out. A change in leadership in the middle of a war is rarely a good idea for any country, and he's banking on that.

However, the war on Hamas rests on the shoulders of American money and supplies. Without that military support, Israel cannot fight this war, and America... is losing patience.

Officially, America and most of the western world have been telling Israel to not fucking escalate for the majority of the war.

There have been implied threats, more or less since Schumer's big speech about how Israel needs a new election, of American legislators putting conditions on any future aid. There have even been rumblings of aid being retracted entirely if Israel follows through on invading Raffah.

So...

American aid to Israel has, for a very long time, been given in the name of defending Israel against Iran and its proxies.

Israel has been fighting this war against Hamas for six months, killing what is by now innumerable civilians, on the power of US military aid.

Netanyahu benefits from the continued war due to domestic troubles.

Iran does not want a regional war, or really any big war, due to its own domestic troubles.

The US is, in theory, losing patience with Israel and threatening to pull the plug on unconditional support. It's very "we gave you this to fight Iran. Stop attacking civilians. If you keep attacking civilians, then you're going to have to rely on what we already gave you to fight off Iran so that you won't keep wasting it on civilians."

Israel... attacks Iran, prompting a response, and is now talking about escalating with Iran.

I am not explicitly saying that it looks to me like Israel, which is already fighting a war on two physical fronts and even more political/economic ones, has picked a fight with Iran so that America feels less like it is able to withdraw support.

I just... am finding it hard to understand why Israel, which is in fact fighting both Hamas and Hezbollah, would attack the Iranian consulate in Syria otherwise. They can't actually afford to fight this war, escalating to a full regional conflict, on a third front.

Not without pressuring American into keeping the faucet of military funding open at full blast.

To support my blogging so I can move out of my parents’ house, I do have a ko-fi. Alternately, you can donate to one of the charities I list in this post OR this post.

[djuvlipen]

But as surrogate mothering is normalized, it is crucial to highlight the classist and racist premises on which it is founded and its destructive consequences for the children thus produced and for women. A worrisome one is the presence of a number of “suspended children,” who, having been denied, for various reasons, legal certification in the countries where the “intended” parents reside, or having been born with disabilities, are rejected by both the surrogate mother and the commissioning couple. A Reuters investigative report has also found that through the internet adoptive parents, at least in the US, can dispose of children adopted abroad, without any difficulty, through a practice called “private rehoming” that is totally unregulated. Even more worrisome is the evidence that some surrogate children are channeled to the organs market, for once the transaction has taken place no institutional oversight checks what happens to the children marketed this way, who in most cases are taken to other regions, thousands of miles away from the place of their birth. ... While defenders portray it as a humanitarian gesture, a gift of life enabling couples who cannot have children to experience the joys of parenting, the fact is that it is women from the poorest regions of the world who generally take on this task, and surrogacy would not exist except for the monetary compensations it fetches. Quite properly, then, in “Surrogates and Outcast Mothers: Racism and Reproductive Politics in the Nineties” (1993), Angela Davis has argued that surrogacy is continuous with the breeding practices that were enforced on the American slave plantations, with poor women in both cases being destined to forfeit their children, once born, for the profit of the rich.

-- Silvia Federici, "Surrogate Motherhood: A Gift of Life or Maternity Denied?" in Beyond the Periphery of the Skin