Do you disagree that the US isn’t supporting Israel, then, or do you disagree that what Israel is doing to Palestinians amounts to genocide?
Some reading for you in case you’re somehow not familiar with the topic:
- https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_genocide_accusation
- https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-un-experts-call-international-community-prevent-genocide-against
- https://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocides-and-conflicts/israel-palestine-conflict-history-causes-and-international-law
- https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976
- https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67922346
Even if the international courts don’t rule that Israel is committing genocide, that will necessarily have been influenced by the United States’s close ties to Israel, so that they haven’t yet said whether it is or isn’t genocide is irrelevant. According to the evidence we have, it is.
That said, see also the intro of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_genocide_in_the_United_States
Others, like historian Gary Anderson, contend that genocide does not accurately characterize any aspect of American history, suggesting instead that ethnic cleansing is a more appropriate term.
I’ve seen that same statement by people opposed to the use of the word “genocide” when talking about Israel’s genocide of Palestine, and it’s just as credible there as when “historian Gary Anderson” said it. At best, such a stance is pedantic; at worst, it supports Israel’s genocide by denying and enabling it.
It isn’t.
I did. And I shared that in my comment above.
Your source doesn’t share any data on the topic, even just as a summary, but it links to summertime smog, which links to “smog-causing pollutants”, which says:
The article’s justification for why E15 isn’t legally permitted is that there’s a law against it, which is circular logic. From the environmental protection perspective, it doesn’t sound like there is data suggesting that E15 on its own is worse for the environment than E10. If the only argument is a legal one, it’s not a good argument.
I did, and I shared that answer in my comment above, too - but it’s not the answer you seem to think it is.