0·
1 day agoTaiwan’s airline is China Airlines, Taiwan’s banking is China Trust, Taiwan’s oil is China Petroleum, Taiwan’s communications are China Telecom; Taiwan speaks Chinese and has the same dialect as across the strait, Taiwan’s streets are named after mainland cities (unlike Hong Kong), the “local cuisine” is Chinese cuisine (and Taiwan competes in the Olympics as “Chinese Taipei”).
It’s strange you bring up Taiwan having “its own currency” when Hong Kong has the same and is by all accounts not an “independent country.” Obviously having one’s “own currency” does not automatically translate to national independence, and nearly every country, and the UN officially, recognizes Taiwan as a part of the PRC.
I think her explanation is awful. She amounts objections to her signing the resolution to “squabble over 3rd degree acknowledgment IHRA exists.” This is a complete lie.
It directly references the IHRA definition of antisemitism (I have no idea what she’s getting at with the degree of removal of referencing a separate state dept guideline which itself references the IHRA definition, since if she’s referring to the “Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism,” which the resolution “welcomes” and “calls upon states and international bodies to endors[e] and embrac[e],” this is just another reference and not at all just “acknowledgment IHRA exists,” instead citing their definition of antisemitism as the most authoritative and providing no other examples) and calls it “an important internationally recognized tool to increase understanding of antisemitism.” This is obviously the definition of antisemitism that is used within the resolution. How is this just an “acknowledgement IHRA exists,” much less separated by 3 degrees because a 2/3 degree separated reference happens later in the resolution? Are we supposed to ignore the direct reference? How has nobody pointed this out? Am I misunderstanding something?
Yes, it explicitly says the definition is nonbinding. The resolution is nothing but rhetoric. I don’t see how this is a defense. So you signed your “Hamas terrorist attack against Israel” resolution for no material reason. She justifies her signing of the resolution by saying:
This isn’t simply an “imperfect vehicle”–the entire basis of the guidelines and of the resolution is the IHRA definition. Your condemnation of “antisemitism” is slop that dilutes the term and will help nobody.