Note: by having the USA abstain from that UN vote right at the end of his presidency, Obama made it possible (ie legal) for us to do this.
If we were targeting Israel specifically, we would run afoul of all sorts of EU regulations since external trade policy falls under EU competency. HOWEVER, because there is a UN resolution specifically identifying the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories as illegal occuptions under international law, it's possible for us to pass a law that doesn't specifically target Israel by name, but rather target any territory that is illegally occupied.
If Brussels takes issue with the ban and tries to fine us for some trumped-up reason like arguing that we're exceeding our reserved competencies, that would initiate legal proceedings which would give us standing to counter and argue that we are only meeting our international obligations as outlined by the UN, and furthermore that the EU-Israel trade deal has a boilerplate clause requiring Israel to meet certain human rights criteria or the entire trade deal goes kaput.
Basically if the EU takes us to court over this, we'll be able to force the argument to be over whether Israel is violating human rights, at which point (because judges are not politicians) the court will almost certainly side with us, which would THEN put Brussels into the legal position where they're OBLIGED to ban these goods EU-wide.
Because Brussels knows this, they're likely to try and avoid initiating proceedings, turning a blind eye. However a lack of consequences for us would embolden other EU members to copy us. Basically it's a rock and a hard place for Brussels.
Just pointing this out so that people see that UN votes DO matter.
I don't think history supports that prediction. Far more likely that America will follow the trajectory of post-USSR Russia. Not as extreme of course, but I think the normalization of open kleptocracy is already on display.
Evidently not, since some voters thought (and still think!) that the solution was to elect Trump. That's evidently where the bar is, as determined by the voters.
First party titles are basically the only reason to buy ANY Nintendo console. However there are alternatives. For example if you don't have a Nintendo console but want to (legally) play a 3D Zelda game, just play one of the Batman Arkham games as it's basically the same core gameplay loop. For a 2D Zelda game play Tunic.
They're not competing for the same slice of the pie, though. Microsoft isn't trying to take Nintendo's customers because Nintendo's customers want very specific things that Microsoft isn't really offering. For example, Nintendo caters extensively to parents who want a safe space for their kids to play online. The Switch doesn't even SUPPORT voice chat without the aid of a separate smartphone. Xbox Live is notoriously the opposite of that, because they focus on teens and young adults, who Sony are also targeting. Basically Nintendo sells to a very specific market, and the other platforms sell to "everybody else".
By contrast, in the 90s Sega was SPECIFICALLY trying to steal customers from Nintendo.
The headline is a cold take but the article goes in-depth into all the ways the FSB is aware of how China is probing Russia (for example, approaching disillusioned Russian scientists with access to classified tech, and employing academics to study cultural links between current regions of Russia and historic China, such as Outer Manchuria) as well as discussing long-term strategic considerations for all sides like how climate change will make Russia's northern coast an attractive option for China to transport goods to sell in Europe, and old quotes by Trump about how his priority is to court Russia to "un-unite" it from China. There's a lot in it, honestly, as the document (which the NYT received from hackers and consulted various intelligence agencies as to its veracity) is pretty detailed, apparently. It also mentions that China is studying the war in Ukraine as it figures out what would best counter Western military tech in the 21st century.
Those people would be dumb and if they can't even figure out that The Incredibles are inspired by the FF then they were never gonna watch the movie in the first place. The whole reason Marvel got popular in the first place was that they made movies that comic fans wanted to see and the comic fans brought their families and friends
The Rise of Skywalker should have been lesson enough for Hollywood about why there's no point planning your movie around what you think will get the Twitterverse the least mad, because they'll get mad anyway
Hollywood in general and Disney in particular seem to be struggling to understand who their target audience actually is. There's a difference between making a movie accessible and catering to the lowest common denomimator.
Note: by having the USA abstain from that UN vote right at the end of his presidency, Obama made it possible (ie legal) for us to do this.
If we were targeting Israel specifically, we would run afoul of all sorts of EU regulations since external trade policy falls under EU competency. HOWEVER, because there is a UN resolution specifically identifying the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories as illegal occuptions under international law, it's possible for us to pass a law that doesn't specifically target Israel by name, but rather target any territory that is illegally occupied.
If Brussels takes issue with the ban and tries to fine us for some trumped-up reason like arguing that we're exceeding our reserved competencies, that would initiate legal proceedings which would give us standing to counter and argue that we are only meeting our international obligations as outlined by the UN, and furthermore that the EU-Israel trade deal has a boilerplate clause requiring Israel to meet certain human rights criteria or the entire trade deal goes kaput.
Basically if the EU takes us to court over this, we'll be able to force the argument to be over whether Israel is violating human rights, at which point (because judges are not politicians) the court will almost certainly side with us, which would THEN put Brussels into the legal position where they're OBLIGED to ban these goods EU-wide.
Because Brussels knows this, they're likely to try and avoid initiating proceedings, turning a blind eye. However a lack of consequences for us would embolden other EU members to copy us. Basically it's a rock and a hard place for Brussels.
Just pointing this out so that people see that UN votes DO matter.