The United Nations, international human rights organizations and many legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel.[13] The International Court of Justice reaffirmed this position, stating that the occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip are unlawful and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid. The ICJ rejected the claim that Gaza was no longer occupied following the 2005 disengagement, on the basis of Israel’s continued control over the Gaza Strip.[106][107]

In Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed v. The Prime Minister, the Israeli Supreme Court assumed that occupation had ended with the disengagement but did not explain the theory or facts that led to this conclusion.[108][109] After the disengagement, Israel claimed that its occupation of Gaza had ended, but also acknowledged that Gaza was not a sovereign state. It labeled Gaza as a “hostile entity,” a status that neither grants Palestinians the right to self-governance and self-protection, nor obliges Israel to protect Gaza’s civilian population. Israel uses this argument to deny Palestinians of full self-governance as well as the use of military force to suppress any resistance to Israeli control.[110]

I don’t need to explain it in my words since more qualified people did a much better job explaining it and I have yet to see any kind of fact, source, or piece of information which would lead me to believe the above is incorrect.

In 2005, 21 Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and four Israeli settlements in the West Bank were unilaterally dismantled.[1] Israeli settlers and army evacuated from inside the Gaza Strip, redeploying its military along the border.[2] The disengagement was conducted unilaterally by Israel, in particular, Israel rejected any coordination or orderly hand-over to the Palestinian Authority.[3] Despite the disengagement, the Gaza Strip is still considered to be occupied under international law.

Source

I’ll ask my question again. Do you call Hugh Jackman Wolverine because he’s used that role to further his career and personal wealth and marketed himself that way?

I gave you an example just to provide more context of my point. If you want to avoid seeing or discussing her than that’s fine. Just ignore these kinds of posts. But at the end of the day, she’s a person not a meme that accidentally went viral. Just treat her as such. That’s literally all I’m saying.

By your definition, virtually every internet personality is a desperate attention seeker. If you want to see it that way then sure. But she’s been using her fame to actually do some good like donate to charity. She even acknowledges she’s just getting her 15 minutes of fame and wants to use it for something good. I’m not saying she’s perfect and I haven’t really been following her myself but you should at least acknowledge stuff like this.

https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/hawk-tuah-girl-charity-donation-33235605

The video caption read: “If I only have 15 minutes of fame then I’m going to spend every last minute of it doing the right thing. Let’s try and find a home for these sweet lil cats & dogs”, she wrote. “Please head over to @mjasvolunteerorganization to get started!”

You tell me. You’re the one contradicting them.

Why do you say she’s a desperate attention seeker?

All good lol. Happens to all of us.

https://api.razzlepuzzles.com/dot_connect

You can still call her by her name. You don’t default calling Hugh Jackman “Wolverine” just because it was such a massive part of his acting career and the reason he is so famous.

I wouldn’t. Weaponized incompetence to this extent isn’t something I give the benefit of the doubt for.

Where did you get that?

The Grassy Narrows River Run march last week was held to pressure the government to address decades-long mercury contamination in Grassy Narrows First Nation since a paper mill in Dryden, Ont., dumped 9,000 kilograms of the substance into the river systems in the 1960s.

Videos on social media showed some march participants chanting pro-Palestinian slogans, which prompted Ford earlier this week to call it a “Palestinian rally” and complain that teachers were trying to indoctrinate children.

Sounds to me more like they went to the correct protest. There were just other protestors there who were chanting Pro-Palestine messages. Doesn’t mean they went to a different or incorrect protest.

How were you still able to get insulting me wrong when I literally gave it to you?

Essentially, the new law will mean that storefronts like Steam will no longer be able to use terms such as “buy” or “purchase” when advertising a game that always requires an online connection. Since you won’t technically own the product and servers being taken offline would render the product useless, a different word will have to be used.

The official phrasing in the bill’s summary reads, it will “prohibit a seller of a digital good from advertising or offering for sale a digital good, as defined, to a purchaser with the terms buy, purchase, or any other term which a reasonable person would understand.”

That’s actually a very good reason IMO.

He can connect them just fine. He just doesn’t care. He’s a cruel man, not a stupid one.

Then why does Amnesty International label it as such?

Premier Doug Ford said Wednesday he had asked Education Minister Jill Dunlop to investigate, saying kids shouldn’t be at protests and should instead be in school learning math, spelling, geography and history.

Field trips are voluntary and are done with the consent of the parents. If these kids went to the protests it’s likely their parents and teachers saw this is a good opportunity to educate these students on our rights as well as how and why to protest. Our high schools have a civics class for a reason (I know it’s only a half credit but I think you get my point).

That’s the point?

No? Is that an expectation?

I’m Canadian so I’m more of a beaver fucker.

Stay classy.