Because to them settling down means having “made it”. It’s the last checkpoint before you stop being their baby boy/girl and become a full-fledged adult.

The weird part is that they’re not; NYT does a lot of good journalism, sometimes even on Palestine, but then they go around and pull shit like this.

That’s probably coming with a whole spider nest’s worth of strings attached.

Yeah fair enough.

Concessions from what is likely to be a rapidly growing economy over the upcoming decade? They’re trying to diversify economically so they’re likely looking to capture the Syrian market before Turkey does.

Wow, that’s low even for Zionists.

Boycott, Divest, Sanction.

Nah those Greek twats had it coming.

That’s true, but it’s still up to them whether they want to get arrested over social media comments somebody else made.

Y’all should actually read the post. They’re clear that they don’t want to do this but fear extreme repression by the German government, and they even listed examples of what exactly they’re trying to avoid. I’m no Israel apologist, but I’m convinced.

deleted by creator

Literally the “why did mum name me Rose” meme.

Yes, but the point is that someone is going to make that stuff so taking your emissions and putting them in someone else’s backyard isn’t exactly something to brag about.

In the bathroom ;)

You’re horny.

They are still the world’s largest contributor by far.

I mean yeah because they’re doing all the manufacturing the West offloaded on them. When you read about emissions in America or Europe going down remember that a big part of that is simply them shuttering heavy industry.

That’s what I thought too, but then again depending on where you put the comma it could be read as it being okay to talk about a one-state solution if you explicitly state that Jews should have equal rights in that one state unless you call for the dissolution of Israel, which to be fair isn’t impossible but… yeah.

The rest of it reeks of trying to evade the rules as well.

Oh that wasn’t my intention. I just wanted clarification because calling for a one-state solution is calling for the dissolution of Israel, so I wasn’t sure (and am still not sure) what the difference between the two is intended to be. So my question is: What rhetoric is allowed (and, probably more importantly, not allowed) when talking about a one-state solution?

Calling for the dissolution of Israel, or calling for a one-state solution without specifying equal rights for all people; Jewish in particular.

So can I say “screw Israel; dismantle that apartheid state and build a true democracy with equal rights for everyone (including Jews) in its place”? The way this part is worded it could go either way.

Also wow that stuff you listed sounds really dystopian.

Based French hater.