4 ms·
It's remarks by the plaintiff's attorney meant to elicit emotion. It includes zero context. Who died - were they militants with guns? Were they civilian casua
by starik36 3y ago
It's remarks by the plaintiff's attorney meant to elicit emotion. It includes zero context. Who died - were they militants with guns? Were they civilian casualties of war? No one knows. Just a bizarre connection between Bethlehem and Gaza. Bethlehem is not in Gaza.
I am not sure what facts I am supposed to gather from this.
- nerpderp82 3y agoOf course it was, those were the closing remarks. You can watch the full speech which gives you the argument spelled out. Or read South Africa's case https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 Ms Ní Ghrálaigh's pedigree in addressing genocide is extensive, as mentioned in the linked article. One can only counter misdirection with facts. There is a Zionist genocide of Palestinians going on right now in Gaza.
- starik36 3y agoThe court said no such thing. Don't spread misinformation.
- nerpderp82 3y agoI didn't say that court said, "There is a Zionist genocide of Palestinians going on right now in Gaza." I did. My comment was asking you to read the original sources, you are twisting my words.