Palestine was only a fraction israeli and they were treated well (could buy property, full citizen status, etc.). After balfour which gave zionists a home within british palestine, zionists moved in with the express of taking over all of palestine despites littler support for zionism within the european jewish community. They pushed ahead anyway and now they are completing this mission.

I was curious why this won't set precent for future cases, so if anyone else is wondering, here's what I found: Here's why that often means it won't create binding precedent: Guilty Pleas Skip the Trial Process: When defendants plead guilty (as Keonne Rodriguez and William Hill did here), they're essentially admitting to the charges without contesting them in court. There's no need for a trial where lawyers argue over evidence, legal interpretations, or the application of laws like the Bank Secrecy Act (which regulates money transmission). Without that adversarial process, the judge doesn't issue a substantive opinion that could interpret the law in a new way. No Detailed Judicial Opinion: In a plea deal, the court's role is mostly to accept the plea, ensure it's voluntary, and impose a sentence. There's rarely a written ruling that analyzes the law deeply enough to serve as precedent. For example, this case doesn't create a "landmark decision" on whether cryptocurrency mixing services (like Samourai's Whirlpool) qualify as money transmission under federal law—it's more of a resolution based on the specific facts and agreement. Lack of Appeals: Precedent often solidifies through appeals, where higher courts review and affirm (or overturn) lower court decisions. A guilty plea typically waives the right to appeal on most grounds, so there's no opportunity for appellate courts to weigh in and create broader case law. Plea Deals Are Fact-Specific: These agreements are negotiated between prosecutors and defendants, often to avoid the risks of trial. They're tailored to the individuals involved (e.g., the developers' roles in operating the wallet) and don't necessarily address bigger questions, like the legality of privacy-focused crypto tools in general. Future cases could still argue different interpretations without being bound by this outcome. Broader Context in Crypto Cases This isn't uncommon in cryptocurrency-related prosecutions. Similar cases, like those involving Tornado Cash or other mixing services, have sometimes gone to trial and set more precedent (e.g., by clarifying what counts as "money transmission"). However, when defendants plead guilty—often to get lighter sentences or avoid harsher charges—it limits the case's impact on the legal landscape. The article might be highlighting this to temper expectations that the pleas will "change the game" for crypto privacy tools.

They need to update their tech. CJs were an okay measure before lightning got to where it is.

Agreed. Everything OP said is true but very few bitcoiners actually hold the beliefs that they are decrying hence the ‘straw men’

monero is way easier to track than lightning, why would you want to reduce your privacy with some outdated shitcoin?

you took the most extreme interpretation of each and then knocked those strawmen out one by one.

is of course an extremely knowledgable source but many other bitcoin developers and users are impressed by the privacy on non-custodial lightning.