• livus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think they mean in legal terms. It would have to be established that they provide them with material support or facilitation.

      Edit in case this isn’t clear, the above sentence is about explaining the point made by the lawyers in the article about international law.

      In my personal opinion the US has been complicit in everything Israel does in this context, and “soft power” is part of that as well as material aid.

      • Melkath@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You sound like a spineless dolt.

        There is a vetted plan submitted to the federal government asking for 30 billion dollars to END homeless in America.

        End it.

        Our “democrat” progressive overlord just sent 50 billion dollars to Israel to blow up innocent people.

        Stop with your bullshit.

        Trump is HORRIBLE. Biden has been sickeningly absent, but now Biden is HORRIBLE.

        Why? Because they both are The Party, and The Party is HORRIBLE. And if you aren’t a millionaire+, you aren’t a part of The Party. You just cook their meals, drive their cars, landscape their properties, and get the back hand if you call out their bullshit.

        • livus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          @Melkath I think you replied to the wrong comment?

          For reference I’m not from the US and I am highly opposed to:

          a) Israeli colonization of the West Bank b) human rights abuses perpetrated against the civillians of Gaza c) the US paying for/ supporting anything to do with the above.

          I’m sorry for the US’s internal troubles you mention too of course (and its weird, old presidents) but that’s not what this thread is about, and I’m not much interested in discussing them.

          • Melkath@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re injecting legal drivel to minimize events that have now occurred.

            Either you are an opportunistic asshole, an unwitting weasle who needs to find lands to burrow under that aren’t quite as land bearing, or you are a spineless prick who will soften the foundation of the master you surrendered your spine to.

            Admittedly, I’m having a hard time being cordial in internet conversations these days, but I am pretty sure my second paragraph isn’t patently false.

            • nogooduser@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              You really need to chill mate.

              You asked “May?” implying that you are questioning why it may be complicate and they replied that they think that the article means he may be legally complicit which has a specific requirement that they helpfully provided.

              They didn’t inject the “legal drivel” the original article did. You’re arguing against things that they didn’t say.

              • Melkath@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                And you really need to gaggle my ball sack.

                Joe Biden just invested 50 billion dollars into genocide and told everyone to sit and spin on it.

            • livus@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              @Melkath ha ha ha nah that’s a real swing and a miss.

              OP’s article is literally about lawyers talking about international law.

              I was simply clarifying the point in the article because as you point out the headline “may” makes no sense from a layperson’s perspective if you haven’t read the article.

              Not sure why you’re projecting onto me.