Eli Kalika

@J_Alexander_HS I would love the shiv change!

Looked over some Classic cards. Made a little sheet of some possible buffs. Not exhaustive, and some might not be that impactful, but it's some food for thought

@Mr_Andrew_Fox Man, I’m rooting for Argentina of the two. I just respect Messi and it would be a tremendous end to his international legacy.

Who are we supporting tonight, then? Personally, it would be great if both sides could lose, but as we have to have a winner, here’s hoping the Argentines get battered 6-0.

@TheHonestNFL Best Nolan film yet?

I’ve run out of words to describe Christopher Nolan.

@IKnowFB @KDW1980 @bwisefitness Are you mixing up players?

@KDW1980 @bwisefitness The fuck are you talking about He’s 22 years old and had to petition another year

Ask any NFL scout or knowledgeable college football fan. OU touts the best 3T in the country in Stone. The best 0 in JJ. Wein was far more of a factor for offenses than RMT down the stretch because of his length. Kip is a prototypical Will and a day 1 draft pick. Do better

“Stories involving needles keep coming up" Jewish patients in Australian hospitals keep experiencing the same thing: once the medical professional treating them realizes they are Jewish, they reportedly struggle to insert IVs. “It is an easy way to make someone suffer, and there is always an explanation: ‘I couldn’t find the vein,'" said Nurit Haddad, a mental-health nurse in New South Wales, who said she had heard multiple similar stories. That is not the only example of antisemitism in Australian hospitals. After the Bondi Beach attack, one doctor allegedly described those who attended a memorial as “Zionists supporting genocide.” In Sydney, a Jewish women who gave birth via caesarean section was allegedly left for hours without pain relief. She was reportedly lying in her own blood, while her newborn cried beside her. In Melbourne, a woman was reportedly mocked for seeking mental health support after her family members in Israel were killed in Hamas's October 7th attack on Israel. “This is not a competition of tragedies,” she said. “We are all suffering, and I simply needed help dealing with my grief.” “Patients are extremely vulnerable in hospital,” one midwife said. “Doctors, nurses and midwives hold enormous power over them.” These are only some of the stories that have recently come to light. Medical antisemitism must be stopped.

📰 Global news coverage of these strikes & their stated justification will tell you (almost) everything you've ever needed to know about media bias & systemic journalistic incompetence when covering international law involving armed conflict. Here's why. BECAUSE IRAN JUST COMMITTED ACTUAL WAR CRIMES AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WON'T EVEN MENTION IT IN THE REPORTING THEY FEED TO THEIR AUDIENCES. That's why. Apologies for the all caps there, but allow me to explain. As an @X article published @CENTCOM after this QTd post indicates, the ships 🇮🇷 attacked were as follows: 🇲🇭 flagged Al Rekayyat*, 🇸🇦 flagged Wedyan & 🇱🇷 flagged Cyprus Prosperity. * What seems to be fairly reliable reporting @Reuters indicates the Al Rekayyat was actually 🇶🇦 flagged. I haven't been able reconcile this discrepancy in reporting yet, so just mentioning it in passing at least for now. It's important to point out to which country each ship is flagged because ... they're all NEUTRALS in this conflict. And media reporting indicates ALL 3 were attacked in territorial waters of OMAN. I mean, if you knew absolutely nothing about international law, these facts alone should still sound pretty war crime-y, no? Still, there are doctrinal definitions that can be identified with a simple google search, so let's check them out just for good measure. The two doctrinal sources we'll consult for present purposes actually haven't been ratified by either country engaged in attacks (🇺🇸 + 🇮🇷), so neither of these treaties directly apply as a matter of *conventional* law. Still, it is rather uncontroversial to consider the definition for military objective established in Additional Protocol I (1977) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions & the relevant war crime established in the Rome Statute @IntlCrimCourt (1998) to reflect customary law. So we'll refer to these sources simply for definitional purposes even though neither one applies as a matter of conventional law. First up, we see in art. 52(1) of AP I that "civilian objects shall not be the object of attack (pic 1, yellow). That prohibition gets operationalized next in the war crime article of the Rome Statute. But first let's clarify what a civilian object is. The same provision of AP I clarifies anything that DOESN'T qualify as a military objective is a civilian object. The next provision then establishes "attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives" (pic 1, green). Military objectives, in turn, "are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and" ... you can actually stop reading at "and." And why is that? Because these ships 🇮🇷 just attacked did NOT MAKE AN EFFECTIVE CONTRIBUTION TO MILITARY ACTION by their nature, location, purpose, or use. So the customary provisions reflected in conventional form by AP I tell us civilian objects shall not be made the object of attack while providing the definition for military objectives. But how do we know violating that obligation constitutes a war crime? Easy ... the Rome Statute says so. More specifically, the war crime established there is "intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives" (pic 2). So attacking neutral-flagged ships in territorial waters of a neutral state is not only an (actual) act of aggression against 🇴🇲, but each of these strikes is an ACTUAL war crime‼️ Iran's "leverage" has been to threaten to commit war crimes in the Strait all this time, and now they actually DID carry out that threat. There's been plenty of global news coverage of these events - but not one peep about the war crimes Iran just committed. Yet we're STILL hearing about a fake "war crime" involving the school in Minab (not "intentional"). And THIS is how you know mainstream media is both generally incompetent AND compromised by progressive (#TDS) / Islamist (#IRGC) propaganda. #journalisticmalpractice #legaldisinformation

Mehdi Hasan @mehdirhasan says he can debunk Israel's defenders in under 60 seconds. His method? Reading a list of names really fast. That's not an argument. That's a filibuster with a bibliography. Fine. Start the clock. Here's the problem with his fifty sources: it's one source wearing fifty costumes. The UN cites Amnesty. Amnesty cites a different UN report. That one cites the BBC. The BBC cites UNRWA. UNRWA cites the Gaza Ministry of Health. The Gaza Ministry of Health is Hamas. Even a member of his own genocide scholars association has a name for this: "citation washing." Congratulations. You just traced fifty "independent" voices back to one terrorist press office. Now, a few of his star witnesses. The International Association of Genocide Scholars? $30 and you're in. Emperor Palpatine is a member. So is Cookie Monster. Amnesty? Their own report — page 101 — calls the established legal standard too "cramped" to reach a genocide finding. The law as written wouldn't convict Israel, so they loosened the law. B'Tselem said the quiet part louder — their report openly adopts "a broader analytical framework" than the legal definition. That's lawyer-speak for "we changed the rules." The UN? The General Assembly passed 17 resolutions against Israel in 2024. Seven against the entire rest of the planet combined. North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia — one each. Sudan, where actual mass slaughter is happening right now? Zero. And here's a name Mehdi will never read off his list: Alice Wairimu Nderitu. The UN's own Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide. Their in-house expert. The one person whose entire job was answering this exact question. She looked at the evidence, looked at the law, and refused to call Gaza a genocide. Her reward? "Hounded, day in, day out. Bullied, hounded, with protection from nobody." Her words. Then her contract quietly wasn't renewed. She said the pressure to declare a genocide "never happened for any other war. Not for Ukraine, not for Sudan, not for Democratic Republic of Congo." The UN's genocide expert said no — so the UN got a new genocide expert. Oh, and one more name he forgot: the jihadist terrorist group Hamas. The original proponent of the genocide libel — the source his fifty sources trace back to. Somehow they didn't make the list. Neither did any of the scholars, military experts, former hostages, survivors, and millions of common-sense humans united in rejecting the claim. Instead of rattling off a list of "because they said so," how about evidence? Millions of warning leaflets. Humanitarian corridors. Polio vaccines. 130 babies born a day. The Jewish birth rate during the Holocaust was statistically zero. That's what genocide looks like. Fifty sources quoting each other isn't fifty sources. It's an echo chamber with footnotes. So, Mehdi's big question: Who do I believe? Wrong question. It's not about Who. It's about What. I believe incontrovertible evidence. Population data. Millions of tons of aid. Hard casualty numbers. Weighed against the actual legal definition — not a list of people and organizations quoting each other. Because I fact-check. Time.

.@Wikipedia is literally erasing Jewish history and identity, systematically and maliciously. Everyone in the organization knows this is happening -- so none of it is an oversight or an accident. Wikipedia is a major source on which LLMs are trained. College students are more likely to read the Wikipedia article than the textbook. This is how public knowledge is shaped.

The UN Human Rights Council issued a report claiming that the IDF deliberately targeted Gazan children. Within hours, it was everywhere. Headlines. Social media. Even Ms. Rachel shared it, calling the report “indisputable evidence.” But the report doesn’t actually contain any evidence. Let’s break it down.🧵(1/6)

🚨 @UN Commission of Inquiry report claims @Israel is responsible for #genocide in #Gaza - again‼️ This is big news. Huge, even. Right? Wrong. If you browse global headlines today, you would certainly think it is. But if you know anything about international law & you scratch the surface of this latest report even a little, there is only one legitimate conclusion. This report is all hype, no substance. There is little - if anything - the authors get right about international law as it actually exists in doctrine. When all the hype & misrepresentations of international law are stripped away, all we're left with is yet another piece of anti-Israel propaganda presented to a global audience by the United Nations bureaucracy. Now, this latest report weighs in at 94 pages, and that's on top of the previous CoI on "Occupied" Palestinian Territory & Israel report of 72 pages published in September 2025 and an even earlier CoI report of 126 pages published in June 2024. The current report refers back to the previous two frequently, so we're actually dealing with a combined count of 292 pages. Tbh, there is so much disinformation in each report, it would take a three-volume manuscript to fully debunk each one in sequence. I don't have time for that right now, and obviously no one on this venue would have the patience for that anyway. For present purposes, then, I will focus on the two substantive allegations made in this most recent report to support the false "genocide" claim. I took the time to read the rest of the "evidence" in the report today, and the methods utilized to evaluate the first two allegations can be replicated for most other claims as well. There are even so many errors just in these first two allegations alone that I won't bother engaging in a comprehensive critical analysis of each of these. Despite the extensive & systemic evidentiary flaws presented in these two preliminary allegations of this latest report, the legal deficiencies are fairly straight forward. So, legal deficiencies will be the focus here - though some engagement of extensive evidentiary flaws is inherent in the legal analysis. Ok, so the substantive allegations raised in the report begin in Section IV. "Physical harm against Palestinian children by Israel." From there, the specific allegations I'll analyze here, in turn, are: A. Child casualties due to Israel’s use of explosive weapons in populated areas (p. 8); and B. Deliberate targeting of children by the Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip (p. 13). Like the remaining substantive allegations, both of these are presented as evidence later in the report to "substantiate" the "genocide" claim (Section VII). When these individual substantive allegations are unraveled, so too is the overarching genocide claim. That's the big picture for the report & this critical analysis. Now, let's address each of the substantive allegations - first "Israel's use of explosive weapons in populated areas", and second to the supposed "deliberate targeting of children" by @IDF. (btw, the latest report is available here in case you want to follow along: ohchr.org/sites/default/…; the previous report from Sep 2025 is available here: ohchr.org/sites/default/…; and the CoI report from June 2024 is available here: ohchr.org/sites/default/…) 1. IV.A. Child casualties due to Israel’s use of explosive weapons in populated areas (p. 8) The primary substantive allegation in this section is presented in ¶ 31: "Israeli military operations in Gaza have been marked by the extensive use of explosive weapons and heavy munitions with a wide-area destructive capacity in residential areas, resulting in complete destruction of residential neighbourhoods." First off, it is worth noting that the sole source for this claim is the "State" of Palestine Environment Control Authority - and it seems quite likely that this "Authority" is controlled by #Hamas terrorists. For reference, the headline for the source of this claim is "The occupation dropped more than 85 thousand tons of bombs on the Gaza Strip", and that "study" is available here: environment.ps/en/gazza. So let's just set aside the blatant anti-Israel bias evident from this source right from the second word of the headline (referring to the IDF as the "occupation"), and for present purposes let's move past the fact that the source for this story is likely to be literal terrorists engaged in information operations. Instead, let's just assume that 🇮🇱 operations have, as the CoI claims, "been marked by the extensive use of explosive weapons and heavy munitions with a wide-area destructive capacity in residential areas." This alone doesn't tell us much - if anything at all - about #LOAC compliance or prospective genocidal intent of 🇮🇱. That's because what this report FAILS to mention - as does nearly all media coverage & public discourse involving the use of explosive weapons & heavy munitions - is that steps can be taken to mitigate the potential harm to civilians even when using these weapons in populated areas. The most common of these mitigation techniques is what we refer to colloquially in the targeteer community as "burying the bomb." In technical terms, this method is called utilizing a "delayed fuse" on the munition. See, most conventional explosive munitions have 3 distinct fusing options: variable timing (air burst), point detonation (explodes on contact), and delayed fuse. For the latter, a delayed fuse means the bomb doesn't explode until a set number of milliseconds after it makes contact with the target (ground, structure, vehicle, etc.). This allows gravity & momentum to continue carrying the bomb after impact, which means the ground (etc.) absorbs most of the explosive effects of the munition. Back to targeteer parlance, the primary hazard to collateral concerns (such as civilian persons or objects) with an unmitigated (usually point detonation) explosion is "fragmentation" & "blast" (that is, overpressure from the explosion). But the primary hazard for a mitigated explosion is "crater ejecta/debris" (pic 1). And although collateral hazard areas for specific munitions are classified & therefore not available to the public, the mitigated technique creates a considerable reduction in potential harm to nearby civilian persons/objects compared to the unmitigated technique. This is all very interesting, you may (hopefully) be thinking to yourself. But what does this have to do with the CoI substantive allegation of the use of explosive weapons/heavy munitions in populated areas & the ensuing claim that 🇮🇱 is responsible for "genocide" in Gaza. Well, I'm glad you asked. Here's the thing. Neither this CoI report, nor any of the previous 2, account for the prospect that 🇮🇱 routinely utilizes delayed fuses when employing explosive weapons/heavy munitions in populated areas. And this is a major problem, primarily for two reasons. First, images that are widely available in news reporting & on social media suggest the IDF frequently utilizes delayed fuses. I mean, if you're not a targeteer or fires specialist (present or former), you may not be able to tell just from looking at a few photos. But if you know what you're looking for, it's obvious that the IDF does frequently implement this mitigation measure. Have a look at pic 2 for example. Notice the steep interior edges & considerable depth of this crater? These are common visual indications that a munition exploded below the surface while the ground (etc.) absorbed most of the blast. This is a topic I've addressed here @X a few times before: notably here in relation to a @60Minutes story on the use of explosive weapons (x.com/BrianCox_RLTW/…); here in relation to the LOAC feasible precautions rule (x.com/BrianCox_RLTW/…); and here in relation to the typical failure of media coverage to account for mitigation techniques such as burying the bomb (x.com/BrianCox_RLTW/…). That leads us to the second major problem to consider in relation to the failure of this CoI report to account for the fact that the IDF appears to commonly utilize this mitigation technique. The report later becomes fixated on the claim that 🇮🇱 is responsible for "genocide" in Gaza (more below). And the use of explosive weapons/heavy munitions in populated areas addressed in this substantive section is cited in support of that conclusion. But, wouldn't frequent use of techniques designed to mitigate harm to civilians be a factor that counters the finding that 🇮🇱 intends to destroy the Palestinian population as an identity group, in whole or in part, as such? Of course it does. Accounting for that possibility, though, would detract from the conclusion the report authors are trying to reach: that 🇮🇱 is responsible for genocide. So either they're too ignorant to realize that this mitigation technique is frequently implemented (and what that means for the "genocide" conclusion), or they're too biased to admit it - or both. Either way, this failure casts significant doubt on the reliability of the report authors & their conclusions. After all, there is nothing inherently unlawful about using explosive weapons or heavy munitions in populated areas. I mean, banning or limiting use of #EWIPA ("explosive weapons in populated areas") has been a pet project of activist organizations such as @ICRC @hrw @amnesty etc. for over a decade now. At most, they've managed to convince many hapless states to sign on to a political declaration (not a binding treaty) on EWIPA. Israel, wisely, refrained, while even the United States (with @JoeBiden as POTUS) signed on. Even with this misguided political declaration hanging around, use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) continues to be regulated by standard LOAC rules. And those rules include measures such as distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions in the attack. Any guesses which of these foundational LOAC rules are addressed by burying the bomb? That's right! All three, depending on the specific circumstances. And ... any guesses which of these foundational LOAC rules are not addressed by this CoI since it does not account for the fact that 🇮🇱 frequently utilizes this mitigation technique? That's right. All of them. As you may recall, that's because the substantive allegation that 🇮🇱 frequently uses explosive weapons in populated areas concludes with the observation that doing so results "in complete destruction of residential neighbourhoods." Notice how blame for the "complete destruction" is apportioned solely to 🇮🇱. No consideration that the large-scale armed conflict was deliberately instigated when #Hamas terrorists committed one of the worst atrocities in living memory on 10/7. No mention that Hamas terrorists deliberately hide & fight among its own civilian population in the large-scale conflict it initiated. No mention that Hamas terrorists frequently plant IEDs in structures they leave behind, such that the IDF is forced to completely destroy neighborhoods in order to mitigate the threat of harm from lethal munitions left behind long after fighting has ended in a particular area. Addressing these factors would counter the narrative that 🇮🇱 is responsible for the "complete destruction" of neighborhoods in Gaza. So, too, would the fact that the IDF routinely utilizes mitigation techniques such as delayed fuses on heavy munitions (which are best suited for destroying subterranean targets such as bunkers & tunnels) to avoid civilian harm. If you're trying to condemn a country for "genocide" from the outset, these are all inconvenient truths that are best ignored in your study - if you know what to look for in the first place. Failure to account for these factors casts doubt on the validity of the "genocide" conclusion presented (yet again) in this report. So, too, does failure to articulate a doctrinal standard for the alleged "deliberate targeting of children" by the IDF - as the next substantive section covers. 2. IV.B. Deliberate targeting of children by the Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip (p. 13) Tbh every subsection in relation to this topic is beset by considerable evidentiary deficiencies - so it was difficult to pick just one to address. Still, given the current venue, picking just one is a good idea - so I decided to go with this one: "Injuring of a 10-day-old baby by quadcopter inside the tent in Nuseirat camp" (¶¶ 59-60). This is an especially difficult claim to analyze because, like many others, the report doesn't specify the source of the factual scenario. So, I did some research to try to find some material related to the incident the report describes: "On 12 April 2024 at 13:00, a 10 day-old-baby boy was shot by a quadcopter while being breastfed by his mother inside their tent in Nuseirat camp." After some digging, the closest I could find is this Instagram post (not kidding) claiming, "Mostafa was shot in the head by an Israeli quadcopter when he was 9 days old" (available here: instagram.com/reels/DPOST8iD…). If you check out that video, you'll notice at the ~10 second mark it briefly shows a baby with what appears to be a small, circular injury (or maybe a birthmark?) on the back of its head. Of course, it's hard to say if this is the evidence the authors of the CoI report consulted for this finding since they don't reveal their source. But this is as close as I could get, so let's go with it. Here's what the authors concluded (¶ 60 - and seriously, I'm not making this up): "The Commission viewed and analysed images of the bullet that hit the baby. The Commission concluded on reasonable grounds that the bullet was fired from a sniper rifle mounted on a quadcopter. Considering that the shooting occurred in broad daylight, the Commission concludes that the quadcopter controller would have been able to see inside the tent and assesses that the target was a mother and a baby." But ... what "bullet"? And what "sniper rifle" or "quadcopter"? As far as I can tell, anyway, the only source for this evidence is an Instagram post that appears to show a baby with a small circular mark on the back of its head while the commentator claims it's an injury caused by a bullet fired by an Israeli quadcopter. If this sourcing is accurate, the "Commission" just accepts all these claims as facts - with absolutely no substantiation - and then CONCLUDES that the (imaginary) controller of the (imaginary) quadcopter MUST have been able to perceive. Alright, those evidentiary deficiencies -as grave as they are - must be addressed to then address the legal deficiency inherent in this ... "conclusion." This is important because it is a recurring pattern in this (and previous) report(s). The authors responsible for this report are relying exclusively on their OWN perception of what MUST have occurred even though they have absolutely no ACTUAL idea what the knowledge & intent of the person (presumably) responsible for the (alleged) attack AT THE TIME. Any guesses what we need to evaluate actual LOAC compliance as a matter of doctrine? That's right! Evidence of the knowledge & intent of the personnel responsible for the attack AT THE TIME. That's because the war crime of directing an attack against a civilian person or object requires evidence that the alleged offender was aware of the civilian nature of the person/object attacked AT THE TIME (see pic 3 for a relevant excerpt of the Rome Statute @IntlCrimCourt, which 🇮🇱 has not ratified but the substantive provisions of which are consistent with IDF doctrine nonetheless - see, eg, gov.il/en/pages/hamas…). So to connect the evidentiary deficiency to the legal error - the report authors are relying on their own perception of what must have happened (apparently based on some random Instagram post?) to this baby rather than on evidence of the knowledge & intent of the (seemingly imaginary) operator of this (also seemingly imaginary) quadcopter in order to conclude that the controller "would have been able to see inside the tent and assesses that the target was a mother and a baby." And this is one of several seemingly factual bases presented in support of the substantive allegation involving the "deliberate targeting of children by the Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip." This allegation, in turn, is later utilized to support the plenary "genocide" claim - to which we'll turn now. If we skip ahead to ¶¶ 338-51 (pp. 77-80), we encounter the plenary "genocide" claim that is making the rounds in global headlines now (and likely will for the rest of this week, at least). Yet this latest "genocide" claim relies on the findings of previous CoI reports as well as substantive allegations presented in the current report to support the conclusion that 🇮🇱 intends to destroy the Palestinian population as an identity group - rather than Hamas as a terrorist group - in whole or in part, as such. Here's the thing. The current report is plagued throughout by the same evidentiary deficiencies and legal flaws addressed above. And previous reports adopt the same flawed methodology as most similar reports that reach the "genocide" conclusion. That is, they draw from a fairly small sampling of rhetoric from select political figures - usually taken out of context or misrepresented altogether - to establish the "genocidal" intent. Then they rely on effects-based observations to establish the "genocidal" acts. This popular methodology isn't consistent with a doctrinal approach because it results in a distorted assessment of both intent and acts. A doctrinally-defensible method would, instead, start with what the stated objectives of IDF operations in Gaza (and the region) are then utilize a balanced & informed approach to assessing whether conduct on the battlefield is consistent with - or contradicts - that stated intent. In the present conflict, the stated strategic objectives have been consistent from the very beginning. As @IsraeliPM @netanyahu & other (actually) relevant officials have routinely expressed, the intent is to end the enduring security threat posed by Hamas (and other regional proxies of the Iranian government) & to repatriate all hostages (pic 4, the latter of which has thankfully now been accomplished). If we start with that stated intent, then we observe mitigation techniques on the battlefield such as burying the bomb on explosive weapons utilized in populated areas or warning the civilian population before strikes when possible or deconflicting humanitarian activities & military operations or taking measures to move the civilian population away from highly kinetic areas and so on, what we're left with is a conclusion that is very different from the findings of this & previous CoI reports. But, the actual doctrinal findings don't fit a preferred narrative of blaming & condemning Israel while ignoring or downplaying actual atrocities committed by literal terrorists. Given unlimited time & space, an analysis similar to that conducted above could be presented for pretty much all the evidentiary claims & legal conclusions presented in this - and previous - CoI report(s). The end result is the same, whether confined to the factors addressed above or resulting from a more comprehensive analysis. This report is a joke, and its conclusions are thoroughly unconvincing. And yet, it will be regarded by MSM outlets & Red-Green Alliance propagandists as the gospel truth for months or years to come. Still, for those who know better, the final assessment is clear. This CoI report is simply yet another stain on the credibility of @UN_HRC & the UN bureaucracy as a whole. #TheMoreYouKnow #legaldisinformation

Reminder: The UN isn’t just biased — it’s obsessed. An antisemitic echo chamber full of terrorist sympathizers in blue helmets. One look at this list says it all 👇🏽

Don't fall for bullshit claims that @Israel is an "invading/occupying force" in #Lebanon from dimwits who clearly don't know the first thing about international law. What Steve fails to mention here is 🇮🇱 continues exercising the inherent right of self-defense from attacks by #Hezbollah - not the state of 🇱🇧. Here's what he ... missed. Article 2(4) of @UN Charter, which has been aptly described as the "cornerstone" of int'l law involving the use of force, does require UN Member States to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state" (pic 1). Since 🇮🇱 appears to be using force "against the territorial integrity" of 🇱🇧, current counter-Hezbollah ops *must* be an illegal invasion, right? Wrong. That's because *another* provision of the UN Charter (art. 51) affirms nothing in that foundational multilateral treaty "shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations" (pic 2). Anyone have any guesses what 🇮🇱 is responding to in 🇱🇧? That's right! A campaign of armed attacks by Hezbollah directed against 🇮🇱 that has been ongoing (in the current iteration) since the death of Ayatollah Khamenei. Not only that, but 🇱🇧 has repeatedly failed in *its* obligation to "exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon" as articulated in UNSCR 1701 (2006). This is a responsibility of *every* state, but in this context it is a foundational component of peaceful relations between 🇮🇱 & 🇱🇧. Indeed, every agreement reached between the 2 countries since then has referred back to UNSCR 1701 while *also* reiterating that 🇮🇱 maintains the inherent right of self-defense (eg, pic 4). So, it is technically true that 🇱🇧 "has the right to defend itself, enshrined in international law" as Steve suggests. That right applies to *all* UN Member States. But Steve here seems to think that *Hezbollah* "should have the right to carry out killings and massacres with impunity." That's just not how international law works. It's not 🇱🇧 exercising its inherent right of self-defense by attacking & killing @IDF members since Hezbollah is the terrorist entity actually using force against 🇮🇱. And Hezbollah has *no* right to engage in armed hostilities pursuant to international law. If 🇱🇧 weren't unable or unwilling to prevent Hezbollah from attacking 🇮🇱 from its territory, then 🇮🇱 wouldn't be compelled now to defend against Hezbollah. But, alas, 🇱🇧 isn't able or willing to do so, so 🇮🇱 must continue exercising the inherent right of self-defense. This is fully compliant with international law, particularly the UN Charter. As such, 🇮🇱 is not engaged in an "illegal" invasion of 🇱🇧 - despite what dimwits like Steve Sweeney claim to the contrary. You seriously couldn’t make it up.

Australians watching their team go down 0-2 to Team USA…

“Ay no, tarjeta gris otra vez”.

@DrSlump1984 @terenceVDH @JonnyBingham4 @Mr_Andrew_Fox @NickCohen4 They did. Repeatedly. lol.

@terenceVDH @JonnyBingham4 @Mr_Andrew_Fox @NickCohen4 Then prove me wrong

With all due respect, Israel is not offering the Palestinians a state of their own if they lay down their arms, or full civil rights or an end to terror tactics on the West Bank. This isn't like Germany in 1945 when the allies were magnanimous,but Yugoslavia in 1991

The way he puts his little paws behind his back to mimic the keeper is pure genius. He's got that "retired and taking a morning stroll" energy down perfectly!

🚨 BREAKING international law development‼️ The current foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran insisted today that the "ceasefire between Iran and the US is unequivocally a ceasefire on all fronts, including in Lebanon." This is a MASSIVE admission that must not go unnoticed because it confirms that widespread popular rhetoric claiming the 🇺🇸 + 🇮🇱 attacks against 🇮🇷 violate international law involving the resort to force has been erroneous all along. Here's why. First off, both @POTUS @realDonaldTrump & @IsraeliPM @netanyahu, as well as their respective governments, have consistently justified Ops Epic Fury & Roaring Lion, respectively, in part because of Iran's direct support for regional proxies such as #Hamas #Hezbollah #Houthis etc. So even if #IRGC had never fired a single rocket @Israel, direct support for terrorist proxies would constitute an adequate legal justification to attack Iran. This is one reason official statements from both 🇺🇸 & 🇮🇱 consistently refer to an "ongoing armed conflict" when explaining the legal basis for such attacks (pic 1, top for an example from 🇮🇱; pic 1, bottom for an example from 🇺🇸). Iran directly supports & controls proxies such as Hezbollah; the nature, duration & intensity of attacks against 🇮🇱 rise to the level of armed conflict; so attacks against 🇮🇷 - whether by 🇮🇱 or 🇺🇸 - involve engaging in an ongoing armed conflict. That's been the consistent position of both 🇺🇸 & 🇮🇱. What about Hezbollah? Do they consider their conflict against 🇮🇱 to be tied directly to the conflict in 🇮🇷? Yes, of course - and they always have. For example, Hezbollah suspended its campaign of attacks directed against 🇮🇱 when a bilateral ceasefire agreement between 🇮🇱 & 🇱🇧 was signed in late Nov 2024. Any guesses what event led Hezbollah to resume attacks against 🇮🇱? That's right! The joint 🇺🇸 🇮🇱 targeting mission early in Ops Epic Fury & Roaring Lion that killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Trump announced the death on Truth Social on Feb 28 & Iranian state media confirmed the same later that day. The next day, Hezbollah announced it launched drone & missile attacks directly against 🇮🇱 "in retaliation for the pure blood of the" Ayatollah (pic 2). Fastforward from March 1 to earlier today, and we see messaging from Trump confirming he has talked both to Bibi & Hezbollah. And as Trump summarizes the discussions, "Israel will not attack them (Hezbollah), and they will not attack Israel" (pic 3). Of course, initial reports tonight indicate that arrangement was short-lived. But the broader context of the arrangement was a warning from 🇮🇷 that any ceasefire agreement must cover "all fronts, including in Lebanon" (eg post QTd here). But why is that exactly? The closest straight-line distance between 🇮🇷 & 🇱🇧 is ~440 miles or so. Most personnel & equipment formally assigned to IRGC is positioned in 🇮🇷 - what's left of it, anyway. So why would 🇮🇷 insist that "ceasefire between Iran and the US is unequivocally a ceasefire on all fronts, including in Lebanon." Simple. Because Iran directly controls, supplies, & supports Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is carrying out attacks against Israel as Iran's proxy (geographically) next to Israel. That's how Iran regards the relationship, as this QTd post from the FM explicitly affirms. That's how Hezbollah sees it, since they renewed attacks against Israel "in retaliation for" the death of Ayatollah Khamenei (again, pic 2). And that's what 🇺🇸 & 🇮🇱 have been saying all this time (again, pic 1). This proxy relationship & the resulting legal justification for directing attacks against 🇮🇷 is clear to all the relevant stakeholders, and they've been making decisions & engaging in armed hostilities accordingly. So, is there anyone out there who seems to have ... missed the memo? Absolutely. For starters, every single academic & "international law expert" in the West who has claimed all along that the military campaign by 🇺🇸 & 🇮🇱 against 🇮🇷 violates international law involving the resort to force. Consider, for example, the letter published in April @Just_Security written by @tomdannenbaum @bechamilton @AdHaque110 @oonahathaway @RonaGabor & signed by "over 100 international law experts" expressing "profound concern about serious violations of international law" in relation to the conflict in Iran (pic 4). Now, I have been asked to assist with a critical analysis of the main points raised in this letter as part of a group project the results of which will hopefully be published in the not-so-distant future. So I am thoroughly familiar with this particular publication & can affirm there is actually little it gets right regarding the analysis of international law - despite the seemingly impressive qualifications of many of its contributors & signatories. Even so, for present purposes I will focus just on the jus ad bellum (int'l law involving the resort to force) concerns raised in the letter. As you can see from the attached screenshot, the experts claim, "The strikes launched by the United States and Israel on February 28, 2026 clearly violated the United Nations Charter prohibition on the use of force" (pic 4). After presenting a standard summary of the existing use of force framework reflected in the Charter (a standard summary that should be revisited btw), the authors simply state, "Iran did not attack Israel or the United States" (again, pic 4). Read that statement again. "Iran did not attack Israel or the United States." What do you think about that claim, based on all the evidence presented above? None of the relevant stakeholders seem to agree, yet here are "over 100 international law 'experts'" asserting simply that Iran didn't attack Israel in the lead up to Ops Epic Fury & Roaring Lion. Indeed, if you navigate to the article (justsecurity.org/135423/profess…) & search for keywords like "proxy" or "Hezbollah" or "Hamas" or "October 7", guess how many returns you'll find. That's right. None. Not a single mention of the proxies 🇮🇷 has been using to attack 🇮🇱 since 10/7, and no acknowledgement of the "ongoing armed conflict" justification repeatedly provided by 🇺🇸 and 🇮🇱. The governments of the United States and of Israel get it. Hezbollah gets it. And if it wasn't clear before, it's explicitly understood now - Iran gets it. But an overwhelming majority of "international law experts" throughout the West obviously do not get it. Of course, there is an important discussion to be had regarding why so many "international law experts" don't understand international law as it is actually applied in practice, regarding the longstanding pacifist / progressive ideology that fosters such widespread errors, regarding how public perception is misled - indeed manipulated - in large part because the news media reports on these fallacies since they are purveyed by "experts" & media professionals don't themselves typically know any better, regarding how these widespread misunderstandings artificially erode public support for such operations by erroneously characterizing them as "illegal", regarding how this phenomenon ends up supporting the strategic objectives of our adversaries, and so on. There will be time & opportunity to address these & similar concerns related to the broader context in due course. For now, simply remember this. Iran explicitly considers Lebanon & its terror proxy Hezbollah as a "front" in the current conflict & links any ceasefire agreement in 🇮🇷 directly to that "front" in 🇱🇧. This is consistent with the long-standing understanding of stakeholders such as 🇺🇸 + 🇮🇱 + Hezbollah as well. This is considered a "front" by 🇮🇷 because it directly funds, arms & supports its terror proxy Hezbollah in 🇱🇧 as it attacks 🇮🇱. And as 🇮🇷 explicitly acknowledges, then, this "front" is part of the same ongoing armed conflict both 🇺🇸 & 🇮🇱 have repeatedly cited when providing the international law justification for attacks against 🇮🇷. And for all these reasons, popular allegations by "international law experts" throughout the West that attacks by 🇺🇸 & 🇮🇱 directed against 🇮🇷 "clearly violated the United Nations Charter prohibition on the use of force" are, in a word, false. #TheMoreYouKnow #legaldisinformation

Watch how the cycle works: 1. An allegation is made. 2. Journalists report the allegation. 3. NGOs cite the reporting. 4. The UN cites the NGOs. 5. A strongly worded report is issued. 6. Everyone cites the UN report. By the end, an unverified claim has been transformed into an accepted "fact" through repetition rather than evidence.

@CJVogel_OTF Unless the rest of the conferences do the same, the SEC is punishing itself for no benefit, and may implode similar to the PAC of old.

Fantastic news. No more playing The Citadel or Umass in late November. Great for the sport.