UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, says countries who advocate women’s rights must ‘walk the talk’, applying their principles consistently and without selective advocacy by avoiding arms transfers that facilitate the killing of Palestinian women by Israel.
Pregnant women, mothers and young girls are particularly vulnerable, she explains, as they face a sharp increase in miscarriages, malnutrition, and severe dehydration due to the dire circumstances.
“Mothers and would-be mothers have been targeted by the genocidal machine,” explains Alsalem. “They cannot even feed their newborn kids, not to mention the terror and desperation they feel because of the constant need to flee seeking safety in a place where there is no safety, the bombardments, the constant attack, the arbitrary executions, destruction of their families, family homes and with it the photos and items commemorating their family lives.”
So just to be clear you admit that there was no evidence for banning me and you lied about the reason?
The hour is running out. All you have to do is acknowledge you are no longer banned.
I can only acknowledge being unbanned if I can acknowledge being justly banned in the first place.
Surely you can prove your claims.
40 minutes until you’re re-banned unless you admit you were unbanned. This is not negotiable.
I see no reason to appease someone who tacks on conditions to his previous comment.
23 minutes.
Well… you made your choice. You could have literally said something like, “It’s about time you fucking unbanned me you complete and utter asshole,” but you clearly would prefer to complain about being banned than being unbanned. No point unbanning someone who doesn’t want to be unbanned.
Hah, I kinda can’t believe I read through this drama, but I did.
Squid, as an outside observer, I saw this:
You are both offended. Considering that aspect alone, this is a hard position to find a resolution from.
This ban seems to have been the result of a single comment thread where you assert that he was lying about facts. He asserts that he was not. I’m sure there’s more nuance, but there was a disagreement, I think that’s the gist of it.
You made a peace offering of sorts, offering to unban him if he jumped through a hoop and admitted a fact you thought he was denying. He had no problem jumping through that hoop and he clarified his position. Though he also claimed there was no wrongdoing in the first place and challenged you to specify the wrongdoing that occurred. That’s him going on the offense, implying that you did something wrong. In response you ignored his question and moved the goal post. And then the combination of his stubbornness and your defensiveness resulted in him being banned again.
So, I get that he’s being stubborn, but he is also being honest. You are not really being honest. Continuing to argue your point while holding the ban over him and requiring him to make more concessions or else… That’s not really fair.
He decided to pretend he was still banned. I decided to make that fantasy a reality.
We could have talked about his problems with me after he abandoned that fantasy. He decided not to.
Well I guess to spell it out more bluntly, I think you’re being unreasonable.
I also think it’s obvious that he wasn’t pretending he was still banned, he simply wasn’t moving on because he didn’t feel he should have had to essentially apologize for something he didn’t do. What he wanted was recognition that the claimed reasoning for the ban was wrong.
Unbanning him at that point was great, but he still wanted more. Perhaps expecting more was unrealistic for him, but he wanted more, that’s why he was still arguing.
So I don’t know, probably just dropping it at that point may have been the right thing, but banning him again was petty.