5 ms·

It's pretty weak proof. It only says some part of it was billed to the ministry of defense. Who knows what it was used for? It could be their HR, billing, etc.

by m00x 2y ago

tsimionescu 2y ago
[flagged]
- arrowsmith 2y ago
  > the ICJ has found there is a possible case for this This is not true, and is based on a misreading of the ICJ's judgement and of the relevant law. https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/lawyers-letter-based-on-error https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/lawyers-letter-based-on-err...
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    That is a lie. Here are the explicit findings: > 72. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment. > 73. The Court recalls Israel’s statement that it has taken certain steps to address and alleviate the conditions faced by the population in the Gaza Strip. The Court further notes that the Attorney General of Israel recently stated that a call for intentional harm to civilians may amount to a criminal offence, including that of incitement, and that several such cases are being examined by Israeli law enforcement authorities. While steps such as these are to be encouraged, they are insufficient to remove the risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused before the Court issues its final decision in the case. > 74. In light of the considerations set out above, the Court considers that there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible, before it gives its final decision. Basically, based on the facts on the harm coming to civilians in Gaza, and on reports of genocidal rhetoric being used in Israel and investigated by Israeli authorities, they find that there is a real and urgent risk that the citizens of Gaza will be subject to genocide. This is not in any way based on the simple existence of an abstract right to be protected from genocide. It is about finding that there is a real, urgent, risk of genocide happening before the ICJ can issue a final decision. [0] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...
    - arrowsmith 2y ago
      I stand corrected.
- Boatfaceing 2y ago
  [dead]
- gataca 2y ago
  repeating lies doesn't make them any more true. starting a war, then losing badly, is just that, losing a war. Or maybe you think the US committed genocide against Germany in the 1940s too?

It's pretty weak proof. It only says some part of it was billed to the ministry of defense. Who knows what it was used for? It could be their HR, billing, etc.

by m00x 2y ago

It's pretty weak proof. It only says some part of it was billed to the ministry of defense. Who knows what it was used for? It could be their HR, billing, etc.

tsimionescu 2y ago

[flagged]

arrowsmith 2y ago
> the ICJ has found there is a possible case for this This is not true, and is based on a misreading of the ICJ's judgement and of the relevant law. https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/lawyers-letter-based-on-error https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/lawyers-letter-based-on-err...
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  That is a lie. Here are the explicit findings: > 72. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment. > 73. The Court recalls Israel’s statement that it has taken certain steps to address and alleviate the conditions faced by the population in the Gaza Strip. The Court further notes that the Attorney General of Israel recently stated that a call for intentional harm to civilians may amount to a criminal offence, including that of incitement, and that several such cases are being examined by Israeli law enforcement authorities. While steps such as these are to be encouraged, they are insufficient to remove the risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused before the Court issues its final decision in the case. > 74. In light of the considerations set out above, the Court considers that there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible, before it gives its final decision. Basically, based on the facts on the harm coming to civilians in Gaza, and on reports of genocidal rhetoric being used in Israel and investigated by Israeli authorities, they find that there is a real and urgent risk that the citizens of Gaza will be subject to genocide. This is not in any way based on the simple existence of an abstract right to be protected from genocide. It is about finding that there is a real, urgent, risk of genocide happening before the ICJ can issue a final decision. [0] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...
  - arrowsmith 2y ago
    I stand corrected.
Boatfaceing 2y ago
[dead]
gataca 2y ago
repeating lies doesn't make them any more true. starting a war, then losing badly, is just that, losing a war. Or maybe you think the US committed genocide against Germany in the 1940s too?