Ｋ

[Ｋ @anj28001]

@TomoMachi 裁判所が憲法判断は行わないと表明して軍隊モドキの自衛隊があり、日米安保がありアジア太平洋最大の米軍基地が日本にあるんですがね？
どこが立派ですか？
立憲主義はどこに行ったのか？🥱

[Ｋ @anj28001]

下らない。
何が殺人のシステムだ。
やっぱりこの監督は卑劣だな。
攻撃時に予測される文民の付随的被害を計測するのは得られる軍事的利益との均衡を図れと武力紛争法が求めているからだろ。
文民の付随的被害が生じることが分かっていて攻撃したから意図的だってさ。
じゃあなにか？
付随的被害を計測せずに野放図に攻撃すれば良かったのか？
どんな被害が出ようが「知りませんでした」と？
そんなバカな話があるかよ。
文民の付随的被害をコントロールする意思がなければ莫大な投資をしてこんなシステム構築しやしねえよ。
それから攻撃で得られる軍事的利益を無視して付随的被害にばかり注目するのも均衡を欠く。
つまりそれは武力紛争法が求めるところではないだろ🥱

[ロイター @ReutersJapan]

24人のイスラエル情報機関員と兵士への匿名インタビューに基づく作品で、監督はイスラエルのユバル・アブラハム氏とレイチェル・ゾール氏。
https://t.co/YMRpBMs9rm

[Ｋ @anj28001]

法を知らなければ何が違法なのかを判断することは出来ませんよ？
平時の法ではなく戦争の法が適用されます。↓戦争法の専門家の話に耳を傾けるべきです🥱
【「比例性評価は、攻撃を自動的に比例的にするものではありません。」——当たり前だろ。しかしこの主張は、そもそも「比例性評価」についての要点を完全に外している。添付の画像（2023年11月に@IsraelMFA
が発表した情報ペーパーの抜粋）から分かる通り、LOACの比例性規則によれば、「予想される付随的［損害］が、攻撃から予想される具体的かつ直接的な軍事的利益に比して過大である場合、攻撃を実施することは禁止される」。そこに大文字で書かれた2つの単語に注目してほしい。教義上、「比例性評価」とは、予想される付随的損害と、予想される具体的かつ直接的な軍事的利益を評価することを意味する。この規則が違反される唯一の場合は、攻撃の責任者が、予想される付随的損害が予想される具体的かつ直接的な軍事的利益に比して過大であると予想しながら、それでも攻撃を実施した場合である。予想される付随的損害が、予想される具体的かつ直接的な軍事的利益に比して過大でなければ、その攻撃は定義上「比例的」である。この点をいくら強調してもしすぎることはない。なぜなら、特定の攻撃がLOACの比例性規則を遵守したかどうかを評価する唯一の方法は、各攻撃の責任者の、当時の知識と意図にアクセスすることだからだ。その情報にアクセスできなければ、当時どの程度の付随的損害が予想され、どの程度の具体的かつ直接的な軍事的利益が予想されていたのかを確実に知ることはできない】

[Dr. Brian L. Cox @BrianCox_RLTW]

You can usually tell when someone has no clue what they're talking about when they describe #LOAC in vague terms like "how many civilian deaths were deemed acceptable" or "doesn't make the deaths proportionate."

Those of us who DO know what we're talking about - especially those like me with extensive practical experience - know better than to talk about LOAC in such abstract terms. We don't talk like that because we don't think like that - and we don't think like that because we know what we're doing.

This post by @Bushra1Shaikh is a perfect example of complete LOAC ignorance, from beginning to end. Let's take a closer look at what she said to see exactly why that is.

"A proportionality assessment does not automatically make a strike proportionate."

- No shit. But this assertion misses the point about a "proportionality assessment" at the outset.

As you can see from the attached image, which is an excerpt from an info paper published in Nov 2023 @IsraelMFA, pursuant to the LOAC proportionality rule "it is prohibited to carry out an attack when the EXPECTED incidental [damage] would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage that is ANTICIPATED from the attack."

Notice the 2 words typed in all caps there. As a matter of doctrine, a "proportionality assessment" involves evaluating the EXPECTED incidental damage and the ANTICIPATED concrete & direct military advantage. The only way this rule is violated is if the person(nel) responsible for the attack EXPECT the incidental damage to be excessive in relation to the concrete & direct military advantage ANTICIPATED and they launch the attack ANYWAY.

If the expected incidental damage is NOT excessive IRT the c&d mil advantage anticipated, then the attack is, by definition, "proportionate."

The reason this point can't be emphasized enough is that the ONLY way to assess whether a particular attack complied with the LOAC proportionality rule is to have access to the knowledge & intent of the person(nel) responsible for EACH attack AT THE TIME. If you don't have access to that information, you don't know for certain what degree of incidental damage was EXPECTED & what degree of concrete & direct military advantage was ANTICIPATED at the time.

In short, if you can't establish those factors, you're not conducting a doctrinal proportionality assessment. Instead, all you're doing is blowing hot air.

Here's the thing. Bushra isn't alone in blowing hot air here. For all this talk about all these "human rights NGOs" & scholars who are routinely held up as "evidence" that @Israel is responsible for "genocide" in #Gaza, they almost always adopt the same bullshit, effects-based methodology for "evaluating" compliance with the LOAC proportionality rule. Then the supposed persistent failure to comply is presented as one bit of evidence of gEnOcIdE.

It's all a hoax, and it has been from the outset. There is one - and only one - way to evaluate compliance with the LOAC rule in doctrine. And waving your hand & claiming "a proportionality assessment does not automatically make a strike proportionate" ain't it.

That's because there is no such thing as a "disproportionate" strike. In practice, and in reality, there are strikes that comply with the LOAC proportionality rule & those that don't.

And if you aren't presenting evidence that the person(nel) involved EXPECTED the incidental damage to be excessive in relation to the concrete & direct military advantage ANTICIPATED at the time AND they authorized or engaged in the attack anyway, then all you're doing is blowing hot air. Just like Bushra is here.

Of course, I've only addressed here a doctrinal publication describing how @IDF implements the LOAC proportionality rule. But this articulation is substantially similar to that found in Additional Protocol I + the Rome Statute (neither of which 🇮🇱 has ratified) & other military organizations such as the 🇺🇸 DoW. The specific wording is slightly different depending on the source, but the doctrinal rule is remarkably consistent - so no need to belabor the slight nuances regarding specific wording & such here.

"It does not prove the intelligence was lawful."

- Um...wut? How is intelligence "un"lawful? This claim is so ignorant it hurts my brain just thinking about it. So ... moving on.

"It does not prove civilians were adequately protected."

- Ah, one of my least favorite of all the popular misunderstandings of LOAC. No matter how many activist groups like ICRC, HRW, Amnesty, etc. claim otherwise, there is NO obligation to "protect" civilians in armed conflict.

This is simply a clever attempt to convert LOAC from a process based to an effects based construct.

Think about it. If there is an obligation to "protect" civilians & then there is an alleged or actual incident of civilian harm, it's easy to create the perception that the relevant LOAC obligation was violated.

This is also a hoax. As a suitable example regarding how "protection" actually works, consider the "basic rule" articulated in AP I art. 48: "In order to ensure respect for and PROTECTION of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations ONLY against military objectives" (not pictured)

If you read this provision closely, what it's telling us is that "protection" of the civilian population is achieved by complying with LOAC obligations.

What it's NOT telling us is that there is an obligation to "adequately protect" civilians. This is a misrepresentation presented in the forum of public discourse by humanitarian activists attempting to convert LOAC into an effects-based construct or by those who simply don't know any better.

I'll leave it to you to assess in which camp you think Bushra is in, but fwiw my guess is it's the latter.

"And it certainly does not prove that Israel has complied with international humanitarian law in every case."

- Actually, the onus is on those claiming 🇮🇱 is NOT complying with LOAC "in every case" to demonstrate THAT.

If you trace this 🧵a bit, you'll notice Bushra is quoting a post from @IsraelWarRoom, who is in turn quoting a previous post from her (one that I also recently quoted), and in that OP Bushra claims IDF operations in Gaza represent a "murderous system" because "'collateral damage'" is "quantified and accepted as part of the operation."

You'll also note that OP is referring to the "NAZA" documentary that's generating a lot of hype at the moment.

I'm sure I'll have way more to say about NAZA in due course, but for now I'll just leave it at this.

The burden of proof is on those responsible for NAZA, and those claiming that documentary demonstrates IDF routinely fails to comply with LOAC, to support their allegation(s) with (actual) evidence - on every single occasion.

Otherwise, LOAC becomes merely a rhetorical tool for (geo)political messaging for those seeking to denounce 🇮🇱 for ... something, anything, for ideological or other purposes. If you're out there claiming IDF personnel have violated LOAC even ONCE, it's on YOU to articulate the doctrinal standard you believe was violated then present evidence that actually proves your allegation.

If you can't do that, once again you're merely blowing hot air - as Bushra here seems so fond of doing.

"In fact, if Israeli military insiders are describing a system where expected civilian deaths are calculated before a strike, that raises the exact question they are trying to avoid:
How many civilian deaths were deemed acceptable before the bomb was dropped? 10? 50? 100? 200?"

- I'm sorry, I can't read this passage without literally lol, and I've read it several times now simply for the entertainment value.

Seriously. If "Israeli military insiders are describing a system where expected civilian deaths are calculated before a strike," they're describing a system that complies with the LOAC proportionality rule as it exists in doctrine!! 😅😂🤣🤣😂😅

I'm not an Israeli military insider, but I DID stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. And I can tell you for certain that "describing a system where expected civilian deaths are calculated before a strike" absolutely does NOT raise a question Israeli military insiders might try to avoid.

Though I would suggest that anyone who doesn't want to appear completely ignorant when it comes to LOAC as it exists in doctrine to refrain from asking "how many civilian deaths were deemed acceptable before the bomb was dropped? 10? 50? 100? 200?"

See, this question is completely ignorant because it in no way considers what degree of concrete & direct military advantage was ANTICIPATED when comparing the expectation of incidental damage. And as I indicated earlier, the DOCTRINAL (read: not BULLSHIT) version of the LOAC proportionality rule requires an assessment of both.

And if you aren't assessing both, based on evidence of knowledge & intent AT TIME TIME, what are you doing??

That's right. Blowing hot air. While confirming to the world you have no clue about which you speak.

"Calling the paperwork a 'proportionality assessment' doesn't make the deaths proportionate."

- First of all, a "'proportionality assessment'" involves much more than merely "paperwork." Indeed, many proportionality assessments - perhaps most, in my experience - don't involve "paperwork" at all since they're conducted on the fly (so to speak) in the context of a dynamic targeting operation or a self-defense engagement. Only a person who hasn't the foggiest fucking clue what s/he is talking about would minimize the procedure inherent in a proportionality assessment by referring to it merely as "paperwork."

And regarding the part about calling the "paperwork" a proportionality assessment "doesn't make the deaths proportionate," once again - no shit.

It doesn't make it "disproportionate" either. One, because - again - there is no such thing as a "proportionate" or "disproportionate" attack. There are attacks that comply with the LOAC proportionality rule, and those that don't.

The only way to differentiate between the two is to evaluate the degree of incidental damage EXPECTED & incidental damage ANTICIPATED at the time in order to determine whether the former was excessive in relation to the latter.

If it wasn't, it complied with the LOAC proportionality rule. If it was, it didn't.

And if you're not articulating a doctrinal version of the rule & then presenting evidence demonstrating it was violated, you are simply ... that's right - blowing hot air.

"You don't get to mark your own homework and call it proof of innocence."

- Seriously. LOAC compliance isn't fucking "homework". What is this ... junior high?

Besides, despite the popular narrative about a military "grading its own homework" when evaluating LOAC compliance - this rhetoric simply demonstrates a complete misunderstanding regarding military force structure to begin with.

Of course, it WOULD be "grading your own paperwork" if we WERE in junior high AND the person responsible for the attack is ALSO responsible for evaluating LOAC compliance afterward.

But, alas, this is NOT junior high & that is NOT how LOAC compliance is evaluated in practice & in reality.

And exactly how is it that I would know that?, you might be asking yourself (if you have no clue who I am).

Easy. I've advised on CIVCAS assessments, investigations, and advised on potential criminal cases as an operational law attorney & military prosecutor in practice - including in combat.

So I know what those who simply blow hot air don't appear to understand. While each military organization establishes its own version of the process, the common thread (at least among militaries that care about LOAC compliance, including the IDF) is that an echelon of command above or separate from that responsible for the incident conducts the evaluation & it is done by someone who has no connection to the attack or the personnel involved.

If an ACTUAL war crime was committed, there is simply no incentive for the entity conducting the inquiry to sweep it under the rug. In short, no one is grading their own homework. Those who suggest otherwise are simply ... that's right - blowing hot air.

"Everyone with rational thinking and functioning eyesight could see how Israel's killing in Gaza was indiscriminate and disproportionate."

- Wrong. No one with rational thinking & a clue of how LOAC actually functions in practice would claim ANY military's operations ANYWHERE are "indiscriminate and disproportionate" based on what their "functioning eyesight" indicates to them alone.

That's because you can't properly determine whether an attack was "indiscriminate" unless you know what the knowledge & intent were of the person(nel) responsible AT THE TIME for EVERY ATTACK you claim to evaluate. Otherwise, all you're doing is looking at the effects of an attack - and that isn't an adequate way to assess LOAC compliance. Regarding the "disproportionate" claim - no need to explain again why that is erroneous as a matter of doctrine.

______

There. We've now addressed every word of Bushra's post, from start to finish (after the first line that sets up the "analysis" thereafter). So, what should be the main takeaways from all this?

To start with, it's not uncommon in public discourse to merely string together a few LOAC terms, as Bushra does here, without having a clue what one is talking about. This dynamic has existed for several years before 10/7, but unfortunately it has expanded exponentially since then in an attempt to create the veneer of legitimacy to rhetoric intended to criticize or denounce Israel.

Also unfortunately, those who routinely misrepresent LOAC or merely blow hot air for that purpose experience absolutely no reputational damage for doing so. Quite the opposite, there are a number of ideological incentives for denouncing Israel AND a general ignorance regarding how LOAC functions in practice - which actually ENCOURAGES propagandists like Bushra here to rely on the language of international law as a tool for denouncing Israel even when the criticism isn't ACTUALLY supported by the law as it exists in doctrine.

So although it can be difficult to tell the difference, it is imperative that everyone is able to - or learns how to - differentiate between those who actually understand LOAC & engage with it in an informed & balanced way in public discourse on one hand, and those who are merely blowing hot air.

Based on this exchange, there should of course be no question regarding to which category I belong & to which Bushra here belongs.

And if you're inclined to blow hot air just to fabricate an excuse to denounce Israel, you should think twice. You never know when you'll encounter someone - like me - who knows better and is willing to put in the time & effort to demonstrate, in painstaking detail, just how clueless you actually are.

#TheMoreYouKnow #legaldisinformation

[Ｋ @anj28001]

イスラエルは空爆を実行するにあたり攻撃前に逐次警告を出している。
マップで攻撃地域を明示し民間人に避難指示を出してから空爆を行っている。
当然このようなことをすれば戦闘員は逃げる。
攻撃前に「攻撃しますよ」と予告するんだから当然だ。
そうなれば軍事的な目標を達成する為に攻撃回数も爆弾投下量も飛躍的に増大する。
純軍事的言えばこれは非効率だが文民殺傷の防止を軍事的利益より重きを置いた結果だ。
他の国がイスラエルのように事前警告を行わないのは軍事的には非効率だからだ。
戦争コストがあまりにも莫大になる。
爆弾は物凄く高価だ。
しかしイスラエルは高コストと分かっていて国民負担が大になると分かってても敢えて軍事的に非効率な手法を採っている。
それなのにタッカー・カールソンみたいな◯◯が「こんなに大量の爆弾をー」とほざくわけだ。
イスラエルが投下する爆弾量、回数だけ見て他の戦争、他の国と比較して投下量、回数に比して殺傷率が何故こんなに低いのかを何にも考えない。
◯◯なのかね？🥱

[Ｋ @anj28001]

ほら、NHKは全然分かってない。

●ドレスデン爆撃では3900トンの爆弾が投下され市民25000人が死亡
●東京大空襲では約1700tもの(爆弾+焼夷弾)が投下され一夜で10万人が死亡
●ガザ空爆では85000トンもの爆弾が投下されたが死亡は6万(昨年10月時点))

ドレスデンと比較するとガザの爆弾投下量はドレスデンの20倍なのに死者は２倍強に留まる。
何故か？
ドレスデン爆撃は無差別爆撃であるがイスラエルのガザ空爆は無差別爆撃ではないからだ。
イスラエルの空爆がかつてとは全く異なり無差別でもなければ民間人を標的とした虐殺でもないことは数字の上でも明確に示されている。
ちなみにこれは誰でもオンライン上で確認可能な数字だ。

脊椎反射せず自分で調べればいいのに。
ガザ戦争、イラン戦争ともに爆弾投下量や爆弾投下回数のみを見て非人道だのなんだのと主張するのは全くの誤りである。
あくまでも
●戦闘員と文民の殺害の比率
●爆弾投下あたりの文民殺傷率
でみなければならない。
イスラエルの爆弾投下量、爆弾投下数は膨大だがそれに対して文民殺傷率は滅茶苦茶に低い(歴史上最低ではないか？)
🥱

[Ｋ @anj28001]

警察官の警告は法的根拠があり、権限を有するから迫力があるんだよ。
「警告無視してお前次やった逮捕な？」ってさ。
弁護士の警告？ナニソレ？
法的根拠ないから警告の中身がねえよ。
あんこの入ってないアンパンみたいなもんだスッカスカ。
弁護士会が権力に対してどうしても対決姿勢を示したいなら警告じゃなくて最後通牒とかにすれば良いんじゃねえか？
東京弁護士会は八王子警察署に対して最後通牒を突き付けたとかさ。弁護士会会長が八王子警察署長に対して
「次やったら宣戦布告で戦争だ」とかよ。警告よりきっと迫力出るぜ🥱

[Ｋ @anj28001]

@ema_credo 勝てるということは戦争にはならないということで「平和が保たれる」ということですよ？分かりますか？🥱

[Ｋ @anj28001]

2000ポンドか。
イランにトドメでも刺すのかね🥱

[The Washington Post @washingtonpost]

Breaking news: The Trump administration is preparing a $2.8 billion sale of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, the largest single sale of the controversial munitions in recent years, a U.S. official told The Post. https://t.co/OBZqGeTtgw

[Ｋ @anj28001]

国連人権理事会が調査委託した調査委員会が報告書を理事会に提出し公表しただけで報告書の内容を理事会が承認したわけでもなんでもないんですけど。
ICCもICJもイスラエルのジェノサイドなんて認めてませんけど？
ICC検察官カリム・カーンは「ガザにジェノサイドの証拠は見付からなかった」と明言してますけど？
アーアー聞こえなーい？🥱

[Ｋ @anj28001]

@palestine_act 「イスラエルバラバラ！」とのシュプレヒコールを行う外国人スピーカーを日本人主催者が一切制止することなく容認する様子を見てるとカタールかどうかは知らんが外国人が主体の運動なんだろうなとは思うね。
参加してるのも外国人ばっかだし。
しかし少ないね
警官がデモしてるのかと思っちゃったよ🤭

[Ｋ @anj28001]

@MofaJapan_jp 公安調査庁による「世界のテロ発生状況」↓を踏まえれば外務省の認識は世界情勢と一致します。全くもってその通りです🥱https://t.co/Er9MQkeByK

[Ｋ @anj28001]

対話？
敵か味方かを突き付けられるだけでは？
米国かICCかを問われてICCを取りますか？🥱
【米国代表団はNATO代表団に対し、「米国は国際刑事裁判所の機能を組織的に解体するだろう…我々は、あなた方が直ちに脱退するための措置を講じることを強く要請する」と伝える文書を送付した。
また、同盟国に対し、国際刑事裁判所（ICC）が自国に及ぼす「脅威を検証」し、その「行き過ぎた行為」を「公に非難」し、裁判所へのあらゆる物的支援を「直ちに停止」するよう求めた。「ICCの茶番劇をきっぱりと終わらせよう」と記されている。NATOはICCの署名国ではないが、トルコと米国を除くすべての同盟国が加盟している】
https://t.co/qp0tN4Z98t

[Ｋ @anj28001]

@amneris84 相変わらず水と安全はタダだと思い込んでるようで。
タダのはずの水飲んだらジョニ黒の値段請求されて憤慨みたいな話を未だにやってるんだからね。
では安価にするために日本企業が開発し各国に輸出して単価を下げればって言えばそれにもどうせ反対するんでしょ🥱

[Ｋ @anj28001]

これはイスラエル軍本部で上映会せんといかんね。
制作者2人は逃げも隠れもしないだろ。
制作者2人へのイスラエル軍人による質疑応答の時間も設けて貰いたい。
公開の場で🥱

[Amit Segal @AmitSegal]

The IDF Spokesperson asks the creators of the film “Naza”:

“Please allow us to watch the full film so that we can address each of the claims on its merits.”

[Ｋ @anj28001]

いやまさに↓
イスラエルは国際人道法を踏み躙ったのではなくその精神に基づき自らの行為を他の交戦国の誰もよりも自覚的たらんとしてこうしたシステムを構築したのにそのことを非難するならこうしたシステムを構築することなく「知りませんでした」「分かりませんでした」とすっとぼければ良かったのかって話になるだけだそれが倫理的なわけないだろ🥱

[John Spencer @SpencerGuard]

Let this sink in. There are people so driven by hatred and the desire to portray an entire military as evil that they will take evidence of compliance with the law of war and try to convince you it is evidence of murder.

Proportionality is a fundamental principle of the law of war. It requires militaries to assess the anticipated military advantage of an attack against the expected incidental harm to civilians. Western militaries conduct this analysis through collateral damage estimation, or CDE. The fact that Israel estimates potential civilian harm before an attack is evidence of a system designed to reduce civilian casualties and comply with the law. It is not evidence of a “murderous system.”

[Ｋ @anj28001]

この映画の制作に参加したガーディアンの一連の報道を改めて確認した。
映画の内容がそれら報道内容に沿うものならば映画が告発する内容はジェノサイドにも民間人を標的とした無差別殺戮にもなり得ない。
この映画はジェノサイドの告発であるかの如く広く宣伝されているが映画本編の内容とは大きく乖離しているようだ。
●イスラエル軍は武力攻撃にあたり文民被害を予め見積もり被害が生じることを認識した上で攻撃していると非難しているが攻撃による文民被害と得られる軍事的利益との間で均衡を測ろうとするのは国際人道法の精神に合致するものでそれ自体は異常で何でもなくむしろ国際法の要請である。
(文民被害を全く生じさせてはならないなら戦争遂行が全く不可能になる)
●軍事情勢により許容される文民被害の上限を設定しこれを情勢変化に伴い上げ下げすることもそうだ。
NYTの報道によれば文民被害が大になることが想定されるケースでは政治階層の承認を必要としたそうだがこれはシビリアンコントロール上、正しい態度だ。
●たとえ均衡を失していたケースや手順等が守られていないケースがあったとしてもそのことをもってイスラエル軍がジェノサイドの意思を有しているとか民間人を標的とした意図的な無差別殺戮を行っているとはならない。(そのような意図を有するならそもそもこのシステム自体を構築してない)
●ガザ戦争を通じて一度の攻撃で民間人被害が最大になったのは2023年10月31日のジャバリアでの攻撃で126人が死亡したとされる。ガーディアン
映画では民間人500人の殺害が許容されたとの証言が出たそうだが該当する攻撃はAI等で検索したが見当たらなかった。
米軍のミナブ小学校攻撃の民間人死者数は168人。BBC
2025年4月17日 イエメン・ラス・イサ港攻撃では
米国防総省の公式評価で民間人80人死亡した。ブルームバーグ
ロシア軍に至ってはAPの報道によれば2022年3月16日のマリウポリ演劇劇場への空爆で民間人死者は600人だそうだ。一度の攻撃でだ🥱

[産経ニュース @Sankei_news]

ガザ攻撃の冷酷さ暴く　ベネチア国際映画祭、イスラエル作品が特別賞
https://t.co/v5m6wUxQPs

イタリアで開かれた第83回ベネチア国際映画祭で12日、イスラエル軍によるガザ攻撃の冷酷さを暴いたドキュメンタリー「ナザ」が審査員特別賞を受賞した。

[Ｋ @anj28001]

@amneris84 イランのホルムズ海峡封鎖と湾岸諸国への無差別攻撃は無視ですか？
安保理決議によりイランのこれらの行為は非難され135カ国が非難決議を支持したんですか？
これらの行為はイランの自衛行為とは認められませんよ？
認められないから安保理決議が通ったんです🥱

[Ｋ @anj28001]

これがここだけのことだと思うか？
この施設には防犯カメラが付いてるから隠蔽が出来ないようになってるんだろう。
逆に言えば防犯カメラが付いてない施設では関係者の口封じに成功すれば幾らでも隠蔽が可能ということになる。
被害者が重度障害者であれば自らが受けた被害を申告出来ない。
恐ろしい話だ。
こういう施設では防犯カメラの設置を法律で義務付けなければならない🥱

[Ｋ @anj28001]

@Hanapan8723 剥奪要求をしたのは権限を有さない文化相。剥奪発言に賛同しているのは極右でイスラエルの左派は猛烈に反発してる。
それなのにイスラエル国家全体を否定して殺人国家呼ばわり。
お前がリベラルとか笑わせるよ🥱