placeholder

I've seen lots of clueless examples posted on aseannow.com. But citing Poland as an example, a country with a centuries long tradition of anti-semitism? Bizarre.

I can see it's really difficult for some people to wrap their minds around the plain English of Hanugama's claim that Hamas was stealing most of the food aid. No evidence, just assertions. And even on commonsense grounds your claims fail. There are about 2 million people in Gaza. Why would Hamas be stealing most of the food to feed its fighters who were reckoned to number 30,000 before the war. Even with the strangulated quantity that Israel allows into Gaza, that doesn't literally add up. . I remember well the "it stands to reason" arguments like yours were made to justify invading Iraq.

And yet you offer nothing yourself to support this statement from Hanaguma: "Given that the majority of relief supplies are stolen by Hamas, perhaps you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction." Put up or...

As I've pointed out, it's common for judges who dissent in whole in whole or in part from a decision to explain their differences with the majority. 4 judges out of 15 disagreed wholly or in part with the decision. They are speaking for themselves. Not for the other 11 judges.

Oh, he's a lawyer. I guess that means he's impartial and fair-minded? It's a good thing that lawyers don't try to make their case by slanting evidence. At least, that's the case in oppositeworld. What don't you understand that out of 15 justices, 4 had a problem of some sort with the ruling? And 2 of those disagreed with the ruling in its entirety.

I posted the entire quote to Twitter without a problem. So I would expect others to do the same. As for the judges opinions. The vote was 13-2. Both of the dissenters wrote opinions. Of the other who voted with the majority, 2 supported this interpretation and one contradicted it. That leaves 10 judges. None of whom has dissented from this pronouncement from the President of the Court: “Israel must immediately halt its military offensive and any other action in Rafah which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” Judge Nawaf Salam, president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), said on Friday. The court considers the humanitarian situation in Rafah to be classified as “disastrous,” he said, adding that UN officials have indicated that the situation was set to “intensify even further” if the Israeli operation in Rafah continues." https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/24/middleeast/israel-icj-gaza-rafah-south-africa-ruling-intl/index.html

That's a misleading quote. It leaves out a crucial part of what the court said. Here's a fuller version: The order says Israel “shall immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/24/world/israel-gaza-war-hamas-rafah

This comes from the landing page of World News. What part of this don't you understand: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." Once again here's your claim: "Last time of checking over 80% of the Palestinians were resolutely behind Hamas and it indeed went higher after 7/10!" Pllease share with us the link that leads to evidence that shows support for Hamas was over 80% before Oct 7, 2023.

You made the claim. It's incumbent upon you to provide the link to a credible source. Most likely, this is just a ploy by you to avoid having to back up a claim for which there is no credible evidence.

As for the other claim by Israel that Hamas is stealing over half the aid: US envoy: Israel hasn’t provided ‘specific evidence’ Hamas is stealing aid shipments https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-envoy-israel-hasnt-provided-specific-evidence-hamas-is-stealing-aid-shipments/#:~:text=The top US diplomat involved,diversion or theft of assistance.”

Wow! From the unbiased source of all Israel.com. Let's examine their claim a little more closely: After the pier became operational on Friday, a UN official told Reuters on Monday that nearly 70% of the humanitarian aid that arrived at the pier had not reached a World Food Programme warehouse in Deir al-Balah. Eleven out of 16 aid trucks “were cleaned out by Palestinians” on the journey to the warehouse on Saturday. “They’ve not seen trucks for a while,” the official said. “They [armed terrorists] just basically mounted on the trucks and helped themselves to some of the food parcels.” https://allisrael.com/hamas-steals-70-of-aid-trucks-cripples-deliveries-via-new-u-s-built-gaza-pier Do you understand what brackets [ ] signify? That what it contains is not part of the quote. That "armed terrorists" is an interpolation put in there by the author of the article. If you go to other sources, you'll find that what they said was that it was hungry Palestinians clearing out the trucks. Not "armed terrorists". This passage is representative of what all the other reports that I could find were saying: "Ten truckloads of food, driven from the pier by U.N. contractors, were received at a WFP warehouse in Deir El Balah. The next day, just five trucks made it to the warehouse after 11 others were intercepted by desperate Gazans, and the operation was temporarily halted. "Crowds had stopped the trucks at various points along the way. " https://www.newsweek.com/gaza-floating-pier-un-humanitarian-aid-israel-hamas-1904248

Last time you checked what exactly? Your imagination? Stop making things up.

More of the same nonsense

Just a transparent attempt by you to make this personal.

Think a little bit further on that. Why do you think it was that the l"ink King" asked for a valid link to evidence? Do you think that's because it exists? You need any more hints?

Got any valid evidence to support that claim?

You got evidence to support that. Because here's some that says your wrong: Fox News poll finds voters overwhelmingly want restrictions on guns... 87% of voters surveyed said they support requiring criminal background checks for all gun buyers. 77% support requiring a 30-day waiting period for all gun purchases. https://www.axios.com/2023/04/28/fox-news-poll-voters-want-gun-control Here's some more: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ Even more: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

This ruling is just another example of judge shopping. This same judge was the one who issued a blanket suspension on the use of mifepristone. Not even a panel from the far right fifth circuit - which repeatedly issues ruling in defiance of the current Supreme Court - entirely supported him. The Supreme Court ultimately issued a blanket stay on his ruling. In short, Kacsmaryk is a right wing loon.

More of the same refusal to address the evidence provided by the links.

More of the same refusal to address the evidence.

This is like saying that the IDF is composed of Jews. Therefore, it's Jews who are invading Gaza. It may be true in a limited sense, but it says nothing relevant about Jews in general. Just as your comment just nothing relevant about Palestinians in general.

Over and over again, you merely assert that the links don't lead to valid evidence. But you never offer any analysis of why the evidence is invalid. Anybody can claim "So no link to claim" in response to any evidence introduce by someone on any topic whatsoever.. In other words, you've got nothing.

Any rational person would say that I have provided that link. Any rational person would understand why a governing party needed propping up. But if you have an alternate explanation of why a governing party needed propping up that doesn't have to do with its support among its citizens, please share it with us.

I have provided a link that shows Hamas was unpopular. Another that shows that the Israeli goal was to prop up the Hamas regime. Tell me how to construe these in any other way but as I have done? Just the fact that Israel was propping up Hamas alone should tell a rational person enough. What do you think propping up means in this context? Why would a government need propping up?

What nonsense. Netanhahu said that the reason to support Hamas was as a counter to the PA. "For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group. The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad." https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ What does "propping up" mean to you?