Which curse? The young girl curse, part of a tiktok trend perpetuated by the director guy, could be explained away. The director guy later on also curses host guy towards the end. Host guy is abrasive to many people, and while only two are shown many of the people host guy pisses off could be adding tiny curses that add up.

The curse seems to present as a monkey paw/genie wish of getting what one says twisted. Host guy jokes about being a baby a few times, and says to green queen both ‘whenever you don’t want me around I’ll just go away’ and then ‘you’ve got a little me inside you’.

In addition, green queen is used to being the actually generous one with her host guy only doing nice things to get something out of it, but he shows growth by giving away a house to the family on hard times. Might also be him trying to get incursed, but from her perspective another reason to want him gone.

The struggle to get grounded again after waking up to, to borrow a word from ModerateTankie, a kafkaesque situation, has some parallels with labour. Most directly when the doula shows up and tries to help.

There are many curse possibilities, but trying to line it up most closely with only what is shown would come to a likely scenario. The first young girl curse was a ‘tiny curse’ that had some chicken effect. Then a big curse by director guy twisted what host guy was saying into what happens at the end, which also hurts the curser and causes a breakdown. Not the only solution but probably the simplest one.

https://archive.is/njHHP

QUESTION: Yeah. On the Gaza issue.

MR PATEL: Yeah.

QUESTION: In 2022, the U.S. filed a brief of intervention in Ukraine’s case against Russia in the ICJ. Why are the circumstances different that the U.S. would not file such a brief or support South Africa in its action against Israel? What are the points of difference that the U.S. has decided on to adopt these very different positions?

MR PATEL: Every conflict is different, and how and whether there is a ground to make a determination or not is based on specific facts and law. And again, in the case of genocide and this ongoing case in front of the ICJ, we believe that those claims are unfounded, and we believe that making such a claim needs to take place with such great care.

QUESTION: The claim is not exactly genocide is happening. The claim in the brief is that the potential for genocide is in place. The bar for genocide is exceedingly high, as you know, but also remembering that President Biden in 2022 described Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as genocide. So he was very quick to make a determination which something like the ICJ still has not made on that particular case. Isn’t this all a bit too early to be saying that there are no grounds for the potential to genocide?

MR PATEL: Every conflict is different and every circumstance is different, and these kinds of determinations need to be made with a close look at the law and the facts. And these allegations that Israel is committing genocide are unfounded. That being said, we have been clear to Israel that they not only must comply with international humanitarian law in its operations against Hamas, but it needs to take all feasible steps to prevent civilian harm. Also we have been clear with regional partners who have relationships or influence with Hamas that any steps that they would be interested in taking to cease hostilities, to release hostages, to take steps away from their self-claimed goal of repeating October 7th again and again and again and again, would be welcome as well.

Max Blumenthal: Can I follow up on that?

MR PATEL: Go ahead.

Max Blumenthal: Secretary Blinken has specifically accused China of genocide for its treatment of the Uyghurs, but Blinken didn’t point to any mass killing there. According to Euro-Med Monitor, 4 percent of the entire population of the Gaza Strip is now dead or injured in just 90 days, 65,000 tons of munitions have been dropped on the Gaza Strip, three times what was dropped on Hiroshima. You have evidence of industrial-style killing. The South African legal team presented 20 minutes straight of statements on the record by Israeli leadership expressing the intent to commit genocide, for example, referring to the Palestinian population as Amalek. So how can you explain this discrepancy between Secretary Blinken accusing China explicitly of genocide with no mass killing, presenting no evidence of the mass killing of Uyghurs, and then dismissing out of hand the potential that Israel could be committing genocide in the Gaza Strip, calling it unfounded? How do you explain this discrepancy?

MR PATEL: The same way that I just explained it to your colleague who asked essentially the same version of your question, which is that each conflict is different, and any kind of determination like this needs to be based on specific facts and law.

Max Blumenthal: And given —

MR PATEL: And when it comes to the points that are made – being made in today’s hearing, again, I’m not going to speak to those specifically. Israel will have an opportunity to address some of those tomorrow. But we, again, feel that these allegations that Israel is committing genocide are unfounded. That being said, we do not disagree that additional steps must and need to be taken to minimize the impact on civilians, and we’ll continue to raise that directly with relevant partners.

Max Blumenthal: And given that you’ve fast-tracked 14 – a sale of 14,000 tank shells to Israel, bypassing Congress, given Secretary Blinken’s participation in war cabinet meetings —

MR PATEL: We didn’t by – we didn’t – I’m just going to stop you right there, because the premise of your question is – is a little misguided. We did not bypass Congress. As part of those – as part of that, there is appropriate congressional notification that happens, and we complied with those appropriately.

Max Blumenthal: Okay. More and more members of Congress are demanding oversight because they’re not getting adequate oversight, but no one disputes that the U.S. is isolated in protecting Israel as it conducts this operation, as it calls it, in Gaza. No one disputes the direct U.S. role. So the question is: Is Secretary Blinken, who went to Israel first declaring he was there as a Jew identifying with the ethno-religious character of this state which is now standing accused of the potential to commit genocide, is Secretary Blinken concerned that ruling in favor of South Africa in this case could set the stage for his own prosecution or that of your colleagues?

MR PATEL: I’m just not going to get ahead of hypotheticals, and you probably shouldn’t either.