ozimoron

One of their top religious leaders said that anything goes in a war against Palestinians. Karim was embroiled in controversy in 2012 for his response to a question posed to him (Hebrew link) on the religious website Kipa, asking in the light of certain biblical passages if IDF soldiers, for example, were permitted to commit rape during wartime despite the general understanding that such an act is widely considered repugnant. In his response, Karim implied that such practices, among several others that were normally prohibited — including the consumption of nonkosher food — were permitted during battle. Sheba ongoing fightKeep Watching “Although intercourse with a female gentile is very grave, it was permitted during wartime (under the conditions it stipulated) out of consideration for the soldiers’ difficulties,” he wrote. https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-taps-chief-rabbi-who-once-seemed-to-permit-wartime-rape/

How do you level 85% of the buildings with 200 2,000 bombs and more ammo than was dropped in just about any war in the last 50 years and claim with a straight face that Israel was trying to minimize casualties? This is precisely why SA took it to the ICJ. And why 100 countries voted in the UN for an immediate ceasefire.

The stench of bankruptcy assails the nostrils.

Interestingly, after a stellar performance by Trump's first NFT offering, the second isn't going so well. I wonder if that portends something about his election chances? https://www.coingecko.com/en/nft/trump-digital-trading-cards-series-2

A ceasefire was an ambit claim. It was never likely. South Africa and the world got enough to satisfy them. An acknowledgment that genocide may have been committed and a direction to Israel that it has to take steps to prevent genocide. Far from just business as usual.

The case was a hearing to determine if South Africa had standing to make the complaint and whether a dispute between SA and Israel existed. Israel tried to argue that it didn't. Israel lost and the court agreed to hear the case.

He'll need to prove that in court. It will be interesting given his previous statements about how rich he is.

They'd have to produce new facts or show an error in interpretation of a law which was not considered at the time. A appeal is not just a simple redo. In the case of the damages award an appeal must show that the amount is unreasonable.

Your huge mistake was assuming I meant a woman of any particular race.

Yale historian worries Supreme Court 'will make itself ridiculous' with major Trump ruling Renowned Yale Prof. Timothy Snyder, who previously said Putin wants Trump to win because the former president shows our "system is rotten," spoke out about the Supreme Court's involvement in the various state-based ballot cases. "I am concerned that the Supreme Court, in ruling on Trump's eligibility for office, will make itself ridiculous," Snyder said. "This is where the comic potential emerges. This Court is unlikely ever to hear again a case of such simplicity, in which the text and context of the Constitution so obviously demand an unambiguous verdict." https://www.rawstory.com/yale-historian-ridiculous-supreme-court/

How so? In the words of the great Pauline Hanson, please explain? It seems you are suggesting the ICJ prevented Israel from continuing it's military campaign against Hamas and didn't explicitly refer to it's right to defend itself against Hamas. Are you the new world twister champion?

You just got yourself on my ignore list for that little display of intellectual prowess.

The ICJ didn't affirm Israel's right to defend itself and continue military operations? I said it did.

Investing $1,000 in Trump NFTs: With a price point of $99, a person could have purchased 10 Trump Digital Trading Cards at the time of mint with $1,000. Based on a current price of 0.145 ETH, or around $235.01, the investment would be worth $2,350.10 today. This represents a return of 135.0% in around 10 months’ time. While the NFTs have fallen from a peak of around 0.84 ETH, the investment is still up. Investors who cashed out early saw gains of around 1,000%. https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cryptocurrency/23/10/35114626/if-you-invested-1-000-in-trump-nfts-heres-how-much-youd-have-today-and-does-it-beat-the-s-

That's not my understanding. Trump is appealing the amount of damages in the first trial, not the actual guilty verdict. Correct me if I'm wrong. If that's the case then a victory on the damages awarded in the first trial will have no impact on the second.

millions.

Not both? Like in any other country?

The ICJ ruling was a repudiation of the claim made in the topic title. Very much on topic. The ICJ affirmed Israel's right to continue it's attacks on Hamas.

That ship has sailed.

Reasonable. Only MAGA don't loathe Trump.

Electric cars will soon become a cheap commodity item instead of the second largest purchase most people will ever make. Competition heats up Companies wanting a slice of China’s fast-growing electric car market have flooded the space with new models. Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi last week detailed its plans to launch an EV to compete with Porsche and Tesla. Li Auto , whose monthly deliveries have surged to record highs, is set to launch its first purely battery-powered vehicle, MEGA, on March 1 and begin deliveries later that month, according to an announcement Sunday. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/02/byd-produced-more-than-3-million-cars-in-2023-set-to-beat-tesla.html

The reason sales didn't drop more was because Tesla was forced to make fairly dramatic price cuts several times during the year to meet the competition. Trump has since warned of reduced production for the coming year. The drop in the TSLA stock in the face of peers rising to new all time highs is far more than any baked in price. The investor euphoria behind TSLA was unfounded.

Gen Z are acutely aware of the massive shift in wealth from the middle class to the rich over the past generation. They are understandably reluctant to fight for billionaire interests.

What is your point? The second trial was only ever about damages. Any attempt at a redo was inadmissible. Standard legal procedure.

it will be on the white house website. Thank me later.