shadysus

The motion calls comments made by Hamilton Centre MPP Sarah Jama last week “antisemitic” and “discriminatory.” If passed, it would call on the Speaker not to recognize Jama in the House “until the Member retracts and deletes her statement on social media and makes an apology in her place in the House.”

Didn't she already retract and apologize?

It also demands that the MPP “desist from further conduct that is inappropriate and unbecoming of a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.”

From what I saw, the issue with the statement in the first place was the timing and that it didn't call out every group that needed to be called out. That's what the issue was. They're also saying the NDP is an "antisemitic party" and that 'Jama is not fit to be premier'. The statements are all wild, it almost makes me think they're trying to use this as a distraction.

They're intentionally making wild controversial claims to direct attention away from the greenbelt controversy

I saw a comment saying that both Hamas and the Netanyahu administration need each other. It's the only way either stays in power

Both aren't good for their own people, and both need to go before we can get peace in the region

Edited to add a word

We'll likely know what happened with time and proper investigation and while I hope for justice, I agree that there's a precedent of that not happening.

Another aspect of this is when western media and politicians are hesitant to call out Netanyahu's administration right now, despite so many Israeli people wanting him gone and months of massive protests in the country.

As for Ireland, they've actually long been different from other European counterparts about Israel/Palestine in both public opinion and government policy. The reasoning given is that they felt a shared sense of struggle against a powerful neighboring regime early on, and that helped them focus on the human rights aspects of the issue

This isn't an endorsement for Trump or Republicans who aren't much better, and rather I wanted to add this since I don't think the other comment was focussed on the important bit.

1986:

Joe Biden says that Israel is the best 3 billion dollar investment the United States makes, and that if there were not an Israel, the US would have to invent a one to protect US interests in the region.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FYLNCcLfIkM

Don't endorse the channel, don't know anything about the channel, I googled for the C-SPAN clip

And a more modern example with a legitimate source:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/10/26/remarks-by-president-biden-and-president-herzog-of-the-state-of-israel-before-bilateral-meeting/

And I — I’ve often said, Mr. President, if there were — if there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent one

And what was the time window for them to do that?

Isn't that the other side of the truck, which does have it?

We do need more information to get proper justice, but in the meantime we also need things to quiet down so things don't just keep getting worse

Yep, news sites also post about Canadian's killed or harmed in Gaza

https://london.ctvnews.ca/london-ont-doctor-trapped-in-gaza-volunteers-at-hospital-urges-entry-of-medical-aid-1.6599751

CTV News has its issues, but they do report on both

There was also this from CBC, which is generally better for coverage

Canadian shot in Gaza says he was 'clearly marked' as a doctor (CBC)

A lot of people are arguing over specifics of who said what, which random social media post included what, what might have happened, etc.

The point that's being missed is that spreading unconfirmed information as fact is wrong, and it's not ok to use it to justify other atrocities.

All the innocent people harmed in this conflict deserve justice, and that information will only come with time and proper investigation. There's no benefit in running with a report right off the bat, and we should be cautious about any leader / news agency doing that because there ARE groups here trying to take advantage of a crisis.

This isn't specific to any side with this conflict, nor is it with this conflict in particular

What?

I agree with unpinning entirely, it's an odd fit

I'm not sure if slack has a new meaning, but it might be one of those misspellings where the person really means "flack"

"To give flack" fits the context here