This is both true and false. There's no proof that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza. But evidence is not the same as proof; evidence is "available facts which tend to support a conclusion." There's evidence sufficient to say "it's a war crime unless XYZ"
@elderofziyon is correct, however, that the IDF has (1) claimed to be following the laws of war in their targeting decisions; (2) demonstrated significant attempts to minimize civilian casualties, warranting a level of trust that they are attempting to follow the laws of war; and
(3) proffered explanations that, if true, would mean that they did not commit war crimes. And we (the public) are simply not going to know for certain whether those explanations are true; revealing proof of those claims would threaten IDF sources and methods, so it won't happen.
That leaves me with two take-aways. First, your belief or disbelief of the IDF says more about your priors than it does about the available information on these particular strikes. If you believe the IDF, in general, is a brutal war machine with no concern for the laws of war,...
then "the IDF says there was a sufficient basis to target building X" isn't going to mean much to you. If - like me - you believe the IDF, in general, attempts to obey the laws of war, then it will.
And second, I think the best insight you're going to get into whether the IDF is being truthful is the reaction of Western governments that would have been privy, through intelligence sharing, to the intelligence underlying the strikes
That means the US, UK, Germany ... to me, their absolute silence after receiving information on the IDF strike on the Jala Tower says "whatever the basis for the strike that the IDF shared was convincing"
I mean, the alternative is that the UK, US, and Germany are suddenly reluctant to condemn attacks on journalists or civilians, and that does not fit with their historical behavior when Israel is at war. Take that FWIW
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Judge is now patiently trying to get Kleinhandler to understand the difference between saying "I think MLB is wrong about GA voting law" and "I think that means it was bad faith"
Holy shit. Never say "wait a minute, your Honor" to a judge
Kleinhandler just said that MLB was free to cancel the ASG entirely, just not able to move it to a different state
OK, as promised, a thread on the flaming bag stuffed with feces Mike Lindell and his excellent lawyers at @BTLawNews left on the electronic doorstep of the Minnesota federal court yesterday
And yes, I tagged @BTLawNews (and am tagging their other practices @BTLawLE@BTLawTrade@BTLawDC) for a reason. I'm not sure they understand how rapidly this filing is torpedoing their reputation; I've already seen GC's on here pledging never to send them any business
And that's well deserved. Not only did @BTLawNews@BTLawLE@BTLawTrade@BTLawDC sign up for a morally repugnant assault on American democracy, *but they did a craptastic legal job doing it*. In-house counsel thus gets to stay away for both moral and practical reasons
1) This is not a bad provision, guys. If you can prove that there were 10K illegal votes in an election won by 9K, you SHOULD be able to void the election
2) That's how most states do it already
3) The proof issues for Trump weren't "how individual voters voted
Judd Legum is freaking out, and more importantly freaking his readers out, but he's dead wrong. This is EXACTLY the standard that got Trump suits tossed in Georgia and Pennsylvania and Arizona and ...
It's not unprecedented. It's not radical. I'm not sure what else is in the bill, and judging by history I'm sure it's got other objectionable provisions, but this isn't one of them. Judd, how do you imagine anyone could ever prove how individuals voted?
We're done with that. We're not going back to that. And if the best you can offer is "that won't happen this time" or "the world won't let it happen again" ...
Tell that to the Uighurs. And Yazidi. And Darfuri. And Tutsi. And ...