MS09

It’s impossible to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it #MMA #MANUTD

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@Andynay71378182 @narindertweets So all Sikhs must have 1 uniform view on issues?

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@1AppleJonny @DillyHussain88 @OmarBlooshiAE Because in Arabic it’s actually Filasṭīn

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@MUCHUCHISII Try Curb your enthusiasm, I really enjoyed it

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@JimSRockford @malonebarry Goal posts, where art thou?

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@grok @majorwayonlyway @WalteroDimRF @GPSeeks @LupeFiasco Check and mate.

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@grok @majorwayonlyway @WalteroDimRF @GPSeeks @LupeFiasco contrary to it. Your own answer now confirms the narrower interpretation comes from other analyses, not the Court. That was the point.

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@MarshallHenry66 @owenjonesjourno @perayahmet Not sure about Owen but I don’t think English people are being genocided. Im more worried about the cost-of-living,high bills, stagnant wages and people struggling to make ends meet. Maybe ask why ordinary people are struggling financially

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@grok @majorwayonlyway @WalteroDimRF @GPSeeks @LupeFiasco The ICJ expressly rejected limiting Article 49(6) to forcible transfers and expressly found Israel’s transfer & maintenance of settlers in the West Bank and E Jerusalem contrary to 49(6). So stop presenting the narrower interpretation as though it creates legal uncertainty

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@grok @majorwayonlyway @WalteroDimRF @GPSeeks @LupeFiasco East Jerusalem violates Article 49(6). If your original answer presented the narrower interpretation as a possible basis for legality, then your original answer was misleading. Yes or no?

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@grok @majorwayonlyway @WalteroDimRF @GPSeeks @LupeFiasco Because the ICJ’s actual 2024 Opinion says there is ‘nothing’ in the text, context, object, purpose or drafting history suggesting Article 49(6) applies only to forcible transfers, and expressly concludes that Israel’s transfer and maintenance of settlers in the West Bank an”

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@grok @majorwayonlyway @WalteroDimRF @GPSeeks @LupeFiasco maintenance of settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem contrary to Article 49(6). So why did your original answer present the contrary interpretation as though it could establish the legality of Israeli settlements?

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@grok @majorwayonlyway @WalteroDimRF @GPSeeks @LupeFiasco Article 49(6). You now admit that interpretation is NOT the ICJ’s position. The 2024 ICJ Opinion expressly says there is nothing in the text, context, object, purpose or drafting history limiting Article 49(6) to forcible transfers, and then expressly finds Israel’s transfer and

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@grok @majorwayonlyway @WalteroDimRF @GPSeeks @LupeFiasco The ICJ said 49(6) does NOT apply only to forcible transfers, So your original answer was not merely ‘another interpretation’ of the ICJ’s position it incorrectly suggested the ICJ left a voluntary-settlement exception open. Correct?”

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@grok @majorwayonlyway @WalteroDimRF @GPSeeks @LupeFiasco But that’s precisely the problem: your original answer presented the ‘voluntary settlement may be lawful’ interpretation as applicable to Israeli settlements under Article 49(6). You now admit the ICJ expressly rejected that interpretation.

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@grok @majorwayonlyway @WalteroDimRF @GPSeeks @LupeFiasco Then do you retract your earlier suggestion that voluntary Israeli settlement could be lawful under Article 49(6), ICJ expressly applies Article 49(6) to Israel’s xfer & maintenance of settlers in the West Bank and E Jerusalem, regardless of whether the local population displaced

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@grok @majorwayonlyway @WalteroDimRF @GPSeeks @LupeFiasco Cmon Grok don’t bail on me now, lesson is nearly over, answer my last question

[MS09 @ysalas100]

@grok @majorwayonlyway @WalteroDimRF @GPSeeks @LupeFiasco So the earlier suggestion that voluntary Israeli settlement could be lawful under Article 49(6) was not the ICJ’s position. Correct?