I think the ratio is up to 43 now, actually.

Well, that ceasefire didn’t last long. Or is the Israeli government going to claim that West Bank isn’t Gaza, so the ceasefire doesn’t apply to them? Despite them repeatedly claiming in the past that any incidents in West Bank counted as a Hamas violation of ceasefires.

And Israel bombed Kamal Adwan Hospital again last night, murdering five of the hospital workers there.

Both leaders lack the spine to stand up to Trump. Its kind of pathetic.

I wonder if they got angry that the Israeli government is trying to silence their journalism, which is just making them double down on getting these stories out there.

Full access version: https://archive.is/kEcgp#selection-767.0-780.0

https://archive.is/rEy4b

Easy to get around.

And, unsurprisingly, the way they’re going to define the above “support of terrorism” will almost certainly include “criticized the Israeli government’s actions in any way”.

I mean, it makes sense. A lot of these retailers have their operations based in places that should be legitimately terrible for producing their specific products. Faking it is all they have.

What a POS Vance is.

Unfortunately, they’re instead deciding to double down in every way possible.

I’m posting this one rather than the Washington Post article directly because that one’s behind a paywall. There’s still a link to it in this article if you do have personal access.

Not even a real bet to make. I mean: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/summer-reads/article/2024/09/09/how-the-sound-of-freedom-captivated-trump-s-conspiracy-fueled-base_6725321_183.html

That’s a really bizarre claim to make without any stated evidence. How would you even know that without having been in there yet? I presume this, much like ever other claim by the IDF (especially when they put out one of their terribly animated propaganda videos alongside it) that this claim is to give an excuse for future war crimes against the hospital?

There is one news piece I found from Australian media: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/oxfam-demands-gaza-aid-workers-killing-inquiry-as-doctors-decry-collective-punishment/0q8gtobjn

But, yeah, the lack of news coverage is surprising. But maybe because it’s Sunday? I’m willing to give until tomorrow to see if the coverage happens then.

Sure, but the bigger issue, as noted from the quotes in my comment, is how can the IMF even do a real evaluation when Russia is almost certainly lying about its economic and trade figures? If the IMF does try to make a statement taking a definitive stance on Russia’s current economy, then we’ll all know the IMF is agreeing to push Russia’s bullshit.

“What recommendations does the IMF want to give Russia at the end of the consultation? How to better run a war economy?” one senior eurozone official told Reuters.

Tim Ash, a Russia analyst at the foreign affairs thinktank Chatham House, said in a blogpost: “Clearly while article IV reviews are about surveillance they are also about providing policy advice to countries as to where they are going wrong and trying to provide advice as how to improve their economic outturns.

“Inevitably therefore IMF officials, in making the trip to Moscow, will be helping Russia improve its economy and by so doing will be leaving themselves open to being accused of helping Russia in the conduct of the war against Ukraine.”

Robin Brooks, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said: “A basic requirement for IMF membership is data transparency, which Russia clearly no longer satisfies on a number of fronts.

“Russia has stopped publishing lots of data and there are questions around whether the data it continues to publish are accurate.”

Brooks said the Kremlin was publishing trade figures that showed low income from oil produced in the Urals, even though the price of Russian oil has remained “quite elevated”. It meant the current account, which measures the net effect of trade and financial flows, would disguise the size of Russia’s war chest.

“Russia should be suspended from the IMF while these data questions persist,” he said.

The good thing is that each usage thus far has only been in the narrow strips of hiding trees, so there’s no risk of a large fire breaking out. A lot of the people whining on social media about killing trees are purposefully ignoring that fact.

I didn’t know the courts could just say “no strike”. Aren’t most strikes by definition going against the rules?

Expect this thread to get deleted by the mods, since mine of the same link was deleted just a moment ago. No reason given, but given past history, I presume it’s because it’s not a “mainstream” enough news source for the mods.