User talk:Nableezy

Jewish Insider article
You've been mentioned in this article, just so you know. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Cool.  nableezy  - 11:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverting my edit
thanks for reverting my edit. I have no way of proving this, obviously, but right after I posted I was like oh shoot this is part of IP- and I went to revert (after taking time to copy the text bc I'll be EC soon), but you already had. Just going to ping @Kashmiri and @ScottishFinnishRadish before anyone gets excited.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 13:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Will also tag @Selfstudier and @Callanecc. Will also tag @ScottishFinnishRadish again as I'm not sure if he's seen this. Also @Nableezy I would appreciate if you edited your comment at Arb to include a link to this page.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 13:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I reverted it three minutes later, dont think there is any definition of "right after" that means "several minutes later". You are free to add this to your section at AE though.  nableezy  - 14:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I did add it, just would appreciate it if you would edit your comment too. It took a few minutes because I wanted to copy the text too, and on the phone I edit with it's difficult to do that without going into the source editor and copying there, so I had to do that and scroll to the bottom to copy, and that's besides the fact that the editor took a while to load due to the long discussion (and weak service). As I said, I can't give proof, but that's what happened.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 14:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

AE
I think they rushed to EC, which I see as gaming, then made those edits. I've posted to  Redtailed wawk. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Just saw this. Doug Weller  talk 10:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah idk why it was just a you’re banned from what you are already banned from until the time you would not be banned from it is over. But I never claimed to understand how this place works.  nableezy  - 10:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See also User talk:Red-tailed hawk Doug Weller  talk 11:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Topic banned for 6 months and 1000 edits. Doug Weller  talk 11:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note
You stated perceptively a few weeks back (at AE i think) that the standard caricature of 2 POVs, pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian, was skewed, in so far as the latter position was confusing (a) support for the bozos of the Palestinian Authority with (b) support for International Law. I think this is the view entertained by most of the latter so-identified editors, but technically, other than the issue of settlements, there was no legal ground for taking so many of the systematic abuses as 'factual': they were at best POVs represented in the work of major human rights organizations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'tselem etc. With the ICJ's advisory opinion yesterday, the claimed subjectivity of this POV has suffered a decided setback. It is now formally a matter of international law that what AI,HRW, and B'tselem are 'claiming' is, factually, a direct reflection of the legal lay of the land, which all nations in the world are under an obligation to underwrite and act in accordance with. So what you suggested is now endorsed as the reality of that inferno.

Of course nothing will change substantially, but at least clarity has been obtained in terms of the legality of what has been, for 57 years, dismissed or sidelined as just one partisan, indeed 'radical left' perspective. It's somewhat amusing to note that for 12 hours the New York Times (it's 6.30 a.m. here) has stubbornly relegated news of the decision to the online back pages, way way below its updated report on the Houthi drone strike in Tel Aviv. Idem with the Washington Post. Nishidani (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Didnt change much in the wall article, idk how much it'll change in these either.  nableezy  - 11:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is qualitatively different from 2004. That applied exclusively to Israel. This ruling creates a broad range of legal problems, hypothetically, for all states unless they rigorously monitor their trade and other relations to ensure  that they themselves do not, directly or indirectly, run foul of the international legal picture as now clarified. I.e. importing anything from settler industries in Palestinian territory or supplying weapons that are used against Palestinians in the Territory. It also makes recognition of the State of Palestine far easier, because that can no longer be spun as antisemitic, or 'political'. It finally renders the absurdly stupid but influential Working definition of antisemitism, with its energetically programmatic attempt to conflate criticism of Israel/anti-Zionism with antisemitism, dead on its feet. Of course, nothing will change the situation in I/P land. Miracles went out of date some millennia ago.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)