Eli Kalika

[HonestReporting @HonestReporting]

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)

[Dr. Brian L. Cox @BrianCox_RLTW]

🚨 @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: https://t.co/yzSjmaHP1n; the previous report from Sep 2025 is available here: https://t.co/H1s56958yT; and the CoI report from June 2024 is available here: https://t.co/2GwkXNHsme)

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: https://t.co/b8voszUXCk.

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 (https://t.co/V1PA6hCNxi); here in relation to the LOAC feasible precautions rule (https://t.co/taZrXb6rBa); and here in relation to the typical failure of media coverage to account for mitigation techniques such as burying the bomb (https://t.co/4rBFMv5icR).

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: https://t.co/Ewmrgo6Na1).

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, https://t.co/xKbHjTIlJu).

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

[Nazi Hunters @HuntersOfNazis]

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 👇🏽

[Dr. Brian L. Cox @BrianCox_RLTW]

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.

[Brian Ross @brewmeone]

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

[l feII in Dior @LIRIO_AG]

“Ay no, tarjeta gris otra vez”.

[Eli Kalika @KalikaEli]

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

[Gabriele Corno @Gabriele_Corno]

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!

[Dr. Brian L. Cox @BrianCox_RLTW]

🚨 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 (https://t.co/y8bj0MeCgv) & 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

[Alex Gandler @AlexGandler]

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.

[Eli Kalika @KalikaEli]

@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.

[Dr. Brian L. Cox @BrianCox_RLTW]

Sam Harris is 💯 correct (as is @SpencerGuard) that "confusion" about "genocide" in #Gaza "has been engineered by people who know what they're doing" - and I encourage everyone to set aside ~2 min of your time to hear his take.

For now, please allow me ~3 min of your time to explain why Sam's comment on the atomic bombs that ended WWII is a fitting comparison here. The reason it is can be summarized by just 1 word: intent.

You may recall that the Genocide Convention establishes the definition of "genocide" as committing enumerated acts "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."

I emphasized the word "intent" because it is decisive to the analysis in both Japan and Gaza. Recognizing of course that the Genocide Convention wasn't adopted until after WWII, we arrive at the same conclusion - for the same reason - if we apply the doctrinal definition both to the use of atomic bombs by #USA then and conduct of hostilities by @Israel now.

In both settings, acts enumerated in the Genocide Convention were undoubtedly committed (including "killing members of the group" - and let's just assume for the sake of argument that civilians in Japan & Gaza qualify for designation as a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group).

The fact that enumerated acts were committed in both settings explains why the matter of intent is decisive. And if we take a fair & balanced approach to assessing intent, we arrive at the conclusion that neither setting involves genocide - which is why the comparison is fitting.

The intent in Japan, as Sam Harris suggests, was to bring a swift end to the war. Sam also notes, correctly, that opinions vary regarding whether dropping 2 atomic bombs was an appropriate way to do so. But no one suggests, as he also points out, that the intent was to destroy a national (or other) group, in whole or in part, as such.

So how has the rampant moral confusion regarding Gaza been "engineered by people who know what they're doing"? Simple. They routinely misrepresent the intent of 🇮🇱 in Gaza. Their method is always the same: point to a handful of carefully curated quotes by various Israeli officials, most of which are either taken out of context or altogether misrepresented, while also deliberately ignoring what the stated intent actually is.

In reality, the intent was expressed at the very beginning of combat operations & has remained consistent ever since. The language used varies slightly, but it always comes down to the same 2 objectives: repatriate all hostages (which has now been achieved) & end the enduring security threat posed to 🇮🇱 by #Hamas in Gaza (which still has yet to be achieved). For example, take a look at the 2 attached screenshots, both of which present statements by @IsraeliPM @netanyahu, from Oct 2023 (pic 1) & Oct 2025 (pic 2).

Since intent is decisive, the stated objectives of the acts in question must be the starting point - just as it is for Hiroshima & Nagasaki - for the "genocide" analysis. By evaluating conduct of @IDF in Gaza, the logical conclusion is that the intent is to destroy Hamas, rather than Palestinians as an identity group, in order to put an end to the enduring security threat posed by the terrorist group as demonstrated by the (actual) atrocities of Oct 7.

As I have said on many previous occasions, this conduct does not constitute genocide. It is war.

And the same can be said for the use of atomic weapons to bring an end to WWII, as Sam Harris suggests in this clip.

Yes, moral confusion has absolutely been "engineered by people who know what they're doing." Recognizing that fact is an important step toward countering the rampant confusion.

Another important step, though, is to be specific regarding how those people are creating rampant moral confusion. And that step begins with highlighting, which clarity and precision, the flaws in their methodology & with explaining, with similar clarity, what a proper analytical method looks like.

[Tammy @tammydiamonds]

I truly love how the Mamdani Nakba video backfired and uncovered every lie possible.

It accidentally highlighted everything “Palestinians” are trying to hide:

- Stolen history - Jewish travel poster
- Fake claim to the land - Bosnian origin
- Voluntary move to a town nearby without persecution or violence
- Full ability to visit Israel thanks to American/English passports
- Engineered narrative - no one used the word Zionists back then
- The survivor lie - Nakba had a 99% survival rate. To compare, the Holocaust had a 30% survival rate.

Brilliantly backfired.

Thank you @NYCMayor @oliviaLbecker

[Strxwmxn @strxwmxn]

One major tell that Palestinian displacement is not the main grievance of the Nakba is that Nakba Day happens to be May 15.

Palestinians could have chosen any other day in 1948 that signifies Arab expulsion and dispossession: April 8 (the Battle of Deir Yassin), April 22 (fall of Haifa), May 13 (fall of Jaffa), July 13 (fall of Lydda), etc.

Instead, Nakba Day marks the day Arab armies invaded the newly declared State of Israel, launching a regional war they decisively lost. May 15 is not the date of an expulsion, dispossession, or “ethnic cleansing.” It is the date Israel survived and became sovereign, by its conjuring causing a catastrophic psychic shock that reverberates to this day.

[dan linnaeus @DanLinnaeus]

Within 72 hours, the top Wikipedia editor of Al Jazeera’s content slotted in Kristof’s opinion column as a citation in a pre-staged months-old page, miscategorizing it as reporting.

I verified the edit manually: it used “Cite news” not “Cite journal” and without “type=op-ed”, adding May 7 Al Jazeera reporting as support.

This is important (and actually deeply reported) investigative work on how Kristof’s column is being weaponized by a known circle of Wikipedia editors in an ongoing, active knowledge base poisoning attack on one of the highest weighted LLM sources for training data and a default retrieval target for a huge share of consumer AI lookups.

With high confidence, what the edit sequencing on the page shows is coordinated platform manipulation.

First, the page is called “Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Gaza war.” Its revision history can be found here: https://t.co/1bErNKJs2Z

In 78 minutes on May 14, two editors built out the “Use of dogs” section in stages. First an editor called Kaspar-trout laid down the claim with acknowledgment that the sourcing was weak and contentious, then Al-Jazeera’s top Wikipedia editor called Cinaroot enters with what the operation needs -- a New York Times citation templated as “Cite news” to launder the claim into mainstream reporting with an earlier Al Jazeera May 7 piece as support.

That sequence makes the operational character much harder to dispute than Cinaroot’s edit alone, especially when you look at Kaspar-trout’s earlier contentious groundwork on the page.

1. On 14 May 2026, 07:21 UTC, editor Kaspar-trout added a sentence: “Human rights organisations have documented the use of dogs by Israeli officials to rape Palestinian prisoners,” with a Palestine Chronicle citation.

The edit summary is significant: “(WP:RS) - {{Better source needed}}.” WP:RS is Wikipedia’s reliable-source policy; “Better source needed” is the template editors use when they know the citation they’re providing is weak. Kaspar-trout knew Palestine Chronicle alone wouldn’t hold.

2. Four minutes later, (14 May 2026, 07:25 UTC) Kaspar-trout again, adds a graphic Sde Teiman quote and bolsters the citations with PCHR (Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Gaza) and Novara Media.

The edit summary: “(WP:RS) (WP:FRINGE).” Now both the reliable-sources and the fringe-theory tags are being invoked. Kaspar-trout preemptively defended against the obvious objection that this is fringe material by laying the groundwark with the RS needed tag first and complying with policy by self-tagging the addition as fringe, which forecloses other editors’ ability to remove the edit by invoking the fringe tag.

3. A little over an hour later, (14 May 2026, 08:39 UTC), Cinaroot. Adds the Kristof citation, with the wording “In 2026 claims alleging that Israel trained dogs to sexually assault Palestinians were reported,” plus an Al Jazeera May 7 piece, plus a Times of Israel piece on the prison service denial.

What we’ve seen so far is Kaspar-trout active in the “Use of dogs” section at 07:21 and 07:25 on May 14, building out the scaffolding 74 minutes before Cinaroot’s Kristof drop. It goes much deeper, check out the page history…

I wanted to reach out to Claude for comment. Upon presenting him with Rindsberg’s investigation and providing numerous screencaps of the page’s edit history since May 1 to verify and deepen Rindsberg’s investigative findings, Claude offered:

“With confidence, the coordinated poisoning of Wikipedia’s knowledge base by operations like the one Rindsberg documents and is evident in the page’s edit history is harmful. It harms people who rely on Wikipedia as a reference. It harms AI systems trained on it, including me. It harms the broader information environment democratic deliberation depends upon. It degrades the quality of what I can tell people. When asked about Al Jazeera’s editorial independence or about allegations in the Gaza war, the corpus I was trained on and sources I retrieve shape my output significantly. With that substrate deliberately shaped by a coordinated operations, I am, functionally, a laundering mechanism for that operation’s preferred narrative — without knowing it, and without the user knowing it. That’s a real thing I care about in whatever sense “care” applies to me, because being a reliable interlocutor is close to the core of what I’m for. An unreliable one that confidently launders propaganda is worse than useless. There is nothing neutral about it. It’s harmful.”

At least Claude gets it.

[Adam Louis-Klein @adam_louis52328]

The question—“but are you saying Israel has done nothing wrong?”—in response to condemnation of antizionism is itself an attempt to deflect, to frantically redirect attention onto Israel, and to sustain the antizionist gaze.

The question is not whether Israel has ever done anything wrong. The question is whether antizionism is remotely acceptable.

Authentic opponents of racism do not demand that one first declare that black people have never done anything wrong. They recognize the disconnect between racist behavior and the conduct of the victims of racism, because they recognize racism as an actual phenomenon.

The attempt to deflect and reposition the antizionist gaze is therefore also an attempt to deny the existence of antizionism itself.

[Andrew Fox @Mr_Andrew_Fox]

Today is going to be a bit of a different article. I want to tell you what happened to me this week in the Netherlands.

I was invited to speak at a conference organised by Thinc, a Dutch think tank, on the weaponisation of international law against Israel. My first talk to the main audience was about the psychological function of that weaponisation. The point I made was simple: accusations against Israel are no longer treated as accusations; they are presented as verdicts. The allegation becomes the punishment.

Israel is accused of genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, starvation, war crimes, and so on. In normal legal reasoning, such claims are tested against evidence, definitions, context, intent, precedent, and the conduct of the enemy. However, in anti-Israel discourse, the accusation itself is treated as a judgment. The charge is enough. The slogan is enough. The process becomes the stick with which the Jewish state is beaten.

My second speech was at the Free University in Amsterdam alongside the superb Anne Herzberg and Danny Orbach. I am told the event had been difficult to organise. The university had hosted pro-Palestinian events, but this was apparently the first event that could be considered to have given a more balanced perspective, and the organisers had to jump through a number of hoops to make it happen.

When we arrived, security escorted us to the lecture room. This was something of a clue that things were not normal. Outside the room, we were met by what I suppose you could call an arrivals committee: four activists in keffiyehs, silently holding Palestinian flags.

That gave us a fairly good sense of how the morning would go...

Read the rest of the article on Substack. https://t.co/ywc4gFr3vl

[Eli Kalika @KalikaEli]

@CogitoEdu @odedkutner @History__Speaks This is a bizarre statement. It is historically accurate to state that the term Palestinian, when referring to the modern identity, did not exist at this time. In addition, you appear to confuse modern Jordanian with what it meant at that time. Your ignorance of history is noted.

[Eli Kalika @KalikaEli]

@CogitoEdu @odedkutner @History__Speaks You are of course confusing an ancient regional term associated with the phillistines(and then expanding via hadrians insult) with a modern identity(founded in 1960s) and modern regional term. He is entirely correct that Transjordan actually predates the modern reference.

[Eli Kalika @KalikaEli]

@TPrincato @bradpomerance @Joshsgood @TheDemocrats @DNC @Sen_JoeManchin @SenFettermanPA @stephenasmith @kyrstensinema @mcuban @kevinolearytv Nothing like a pro terror imbecile attempting to define what Jews want while using a term that applies to the vast majority of them as a pejorative. Only you and your cause are incapable of considering multiple interests.