I read that the ruling mention that they couldn't prove the money was used for the campaign and that the conviction is all about the participation in the conspiration you mention.
To be honest, what I would want to know is if he sent us to war in Libya to hide his crimes. That would be the real evil to me.
Getting him to jail for asking someone for campaign money really gives a weird feeling in that sense.
I'm not Israeli. I'm part of the rest of the world and many people where I live and many other countries have the same view as I do about the right of Israel to military action to destroy Hamas.
I think there is a much widespread support for Israel than you think. And that the accusation of genocide are meant to silence this support as much as possible.
The US (and the UK) did massive damages to my country and particularly my region, while fighting against the Nazis, leveling cities and killing tens of thousands of French citizens. My grand parents had to flee on foot as far as possible from the combat zones on the request of the allies. There even was reports of hundreds of rape and even murders from US troops at the Liberation. And it was much much worse in Germany...
No one in their right mind would talk about the US pursuing a genocide against the Germans or the Normans.
We don't judge the US based on this, but based on the results they achieved and what they did after the war. I think most Germans also believe this.
I will also judge Israel based on what they do after Hamas is defeated. I hope they do the right thing, as the US did. And I believe they will and that it is in their best interest to do so.
No he didn't. He lost the election and as a result we don't have any government able to get a majority at the Assemblée Nationale.
Which is why he should refrain from acting such a strong policy shift and what could be perceived as a major change of alliance.
What would be equivalent would be Trump deciding to change a long standing geopolitical policy after he lost the mid-terms and without the US congress having any voice in the matter.
It's very fortunate that they didn't change from being Israel allies to Hamas allies.
However, they recognized a state while the previous position was that they would not recognize one until an agreement is found with Israel.
The Hamas and the people that celebrated October 7th in the West will celebrate this as a victory and for a good reason because of the timing (in fact, they already did...).
You made the best case that I read so far on a recognition though from a diplomatic point of view. I just think it's wishful thinking given the force in presence in the palestinian society, and that it evacuate too casually the optics of a recognition before any condition is met, which will be seen as an unconditional recognition by many (most?) people.
What happens when Hamas or an a similar faction kill any reformist and take back control for example? Not exactly an implausible scenario given the relatively recent history.
I see it as Nazi Germany and the de-nazification process. Reconstruction and economic prosperity combined with re-education program lead by the allies occupying the different zones with a clear time-limited mandate. US occupation of Japan after WW2 might also provide some ideas on how it could work.
I don't think letting the Nazi regime or the Japan regime survive the war would have been a great idea. I think the same about Hamas.
I wonder what would have been the views in the West at the time if TikTok existed and people saw the war as vividly. I can only imagine how the Nazi propaganda would have worked out on the US for example.
You're arguing as if the debate was about the UK formalizing its intentions to recognize a palestinian transition government that would recognize Israel. It isn't. Otherwise we would probably not have as strong a disagreement.
My disagreement is on the recognition itself at this moment in time, with Hamas still being the strongest military and political force in what could be a Palestinian state in the future.
The conditions are not met, but the recognition is already formalized. Is the plan to rescind the recognition if the PLO don't act or isn't in capacity to act on its promises?
I think it effectively rewards Hamas actions on October 7th even if it isn't the intended purpose.
And when I say that I think it will encourage terrorism, I don't mean only in Israel but in the world. That might well be a possible way out for Israel as you say, but I believe it will become the strongest success for a terrorist organization in a very long time and give ideas to other faction worldwide, especially among jihadists.
You don't punish Israel by giving a victory to Hamas. You punish the next victim of terrorism after you recognized that it works to make you obey.
If killing as many palestinians as possible was the intention of the Israel military, they wouldn't need to go into Gaza city, they would bomb it without sending troops on the ground. The only reason for going on the ground and losing soldiers is to go dig out the Hamas.
Having the intention of annihilating Hamas isn't genocidal.
That's plain wrong. The PLO was already there before October 7th. They didn't recognize a Palestinian statehood at that time. This is a victory for Hamas, not for the PLO. The timing is everything.
Today Starmer finalized Yahya Sinwar plan. You can try to blame it on Israel but you're playing a music written by Sinwar.
Marie Antoinette was not killed because she was particularly detached but for treason after plotting against the Constitutional monarchy of 1791 along with Louis XVI and many aristocrats at the time.
It would need to be a tax on money transfer to the American counterpart. Cash repatriation or payment for IP rights comes to mind.
Of course, the multinational could also use the funds to invest in Europe, build warehouse or commercial real estate or acquire European startups. I think they already do this to some extent to avoid US tax.
Using these to fund free credits to European cloud providers could be a good way to build up a local alternative. I think we underestimate the importance of free credits in the reliance on the 3 US hyperscalers, especially for startups.
It is looks very similar in France and in the US to some extent. I copy a post I made somewhere in this thread as I think it can help here:
Prosecutors are formally under executive control but since 2013 the justice minister should not give orders on individual cases.
France has an additional layer of independence compared to the U.S. because of the juge d’instruction (investigating judge), who is supposed to be independent from the executive like the courts judges, unlike prosecutors.
I say in principle because judges are appointed in France and not elected (similarly to federal judge in the US from what I understood). The executive as some control through appointments and career advancements but they are not supposed to use it to sanction or reward the judges.
The effectiveness of these independence mechanisms remains a subject of active debate, as evidenced by the relatively recent changes made to them.
That is not what MLP is saying. She said that immediate application of the ineligibility sentence in particular is politically motivated.
And even more precisely, that the judges expressed this political motivation explicitly through the use of MLP running in the presidential election as presenting a risk to public peace.
I'm not claiming it is really in the deliberations as I'm yet to read those.