Wasn't.
It was put on hold while both sides argued for and against it.
The prosecutor won the argument and the hold was removed.
Kepabar
joined 2 years ago
Old timey American slang for black person, meant to have a derogative tone.
I was pointing out that this statement you made:
Gaza has a majortiy of Muslims but never rejected "citizenship" to Jews or Christians.
Is very, very wrong.
I'm not sure this is correct in respect to Gaza.
The requirements for citizenship under pre-hamas in Gaza is your father must be an Palestinian Arab. There is no naturalization process that allows you to bypass this requirement. That is the definition of an ethnostate.
While I can't find any record on if Hamas changed the law, I highly doubt they did considering their political stance.
Realistically a governments first responsibility before anything else is the physical safety of it's citizenship.
If you know a percentage of a population are religious extremists which will never integrate into your society and will probably pose a risk, then how can you, as a government, take them in?
It's a hard sell any way you slice it.
Correct, the state passed a law allowing those cases where statue of limitations have been passed for criminal trails to still sue their attacker in civil court.
It's been suggested this was passed specifically to target Trump, but a good number of sexual assaults never go reported and I believe a few hundred cases have come from this law.
It has since expired, it was only valid for one year.
Yes we go by preponderance of evidence.
Essentially it's 'whoever you Believe more' in civil cases, which is significantly lower than 'beyond a reasonable doubt ' we use for criminal trials.
It's nothing so complicated as all that.
It's as simple as any possible solution to the issue is to Israels disadvantage, so they work to maintain the status quo.
No one has suggested you would just execute a person on sight while they are under the influence.
In these situations there are interviews, evaluations and waiting periods to ensure the person is 'of sound mind' before proceeding.
So with that cleared up, I'll repeat my question.
Why should you get to be the arbiter of if someone else is allowed to die?
I still don't think that answers the question:
Why should anyone other than yourself be the arbiter of if your life should continue?
Capitalism has done as much as it has for the advancement of the human species because it aligns with our basic nature (gather and amass resources) while producing and innovating with the unintended side effect of improving quality of life overall.
I still feel that regulated capitalism is the way to go for most industries. The exception is services which should have 100% coverage, such as medical, acidemia or utilities. Those should be government ran.