Hamas attacks southern Israel

[Ludicus]

The use of ", which" instead of " that" signals a non-restrictive clause. So not "only those actions that" but rather "all of those actions because".

The Court’s order prohibits the actual military offensive that Israel is carrying out in Rafah.The ICJ also ordered Israel to open the Rafah border crossing with Egypt for the entry of large-scale humanitarian aid and to ensure access to Gaza for investigators and fact-finding missions. Have you forgotten that all orders of the court are are complementary?

Halt: The International Court of Justice and the Rafah ...

The Measures

The Court reaffirmed its prior orders, then indicated four new provisional measures, each by an overwhelming vote of 13-2, ordering Israel to:

Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Maintain open the Rafah crossing for unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance
Take effective measures to ensure the unimpeded access to the Gaza Strip of any commission of inquiry, fact-finding mission or other investigative body mandated by competent organs of the United Nations to investigate allegations of genocide
[S]ubmit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order, within one month as from the date of this Order.

All four measures are important. The order to keep open the Rafah crossing is striking for its specificity. The order to allow UN-mandated investigative bodies into Gaza could significantly enhance independent and impartial fact-finding. The reporting requirement ensures that Israel will remain accountable to the Court for its compliance or lack thereof.

The first measure is the most important. Its formulation is somewhat ambiguous, but the ambiguity makes no practical difference.

The order is most naturally read to mean that Israel must immediately halt

(i) its military offensive in the Rafah Governorate, and
(ii) any other action in the Rafah Governorate which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

This reading slightly deviates from the text by specifying the military offensive at issue and by ignoring the second comma.

Alternatively, one could read the order to mean that Israel must immediately halt

(i) its military offensive in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and
(ii) any other action in the Rafah Governorate which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

This reading is somewhat awkward, since the same words (‘which many inflict …’) perform two different functions, first describing a specific action (‘its military offensive’) then defining a general category of actions (‘any other action’).

Finally, one could read the order to mean that Israel must immediately halt

(a) its military offensive in the Rafah Governorate to the extent that it may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part and
(b) any other action in the Rafah Governorate which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

This reading substantially rewrites the order, inserting words (“to the extent that it”) that it does not contain and qualifications where they do not seem to belong. Nevertheless, as we shall see, two judges prefer this reading.

On any of these readings, Israel may not continue its current military offensive in Rafah as currently planned.

As a matter of fact, the Court specifically found that the current offensive exposes the civilian population to “immense risk” of mass death from starvation and disease. As a matter of law, the Court found a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to rights under the Genocide Convention. These findings are equivalent to a finding that the current military offensive may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Therefore, the current offensive as currently planned and executed is prohibited under any reading. The current military offensive must immediately halt, and so must any other action that carries similar risks.

At the same time, Israel may carry out limited military operations to respond to specific attacks or to rescue hostages. It makes no practical difference whether we say that Israel must halt its current military offensive but may carry out distinct and limited military operations (the first reading) or may-continue-but-must-limit its current military offensive to avoid the “immense risk” it currently poses to group survival (the third reading). The result is the same.

The Separate Opinions

Three judges wrote declarations and two wrote dissenting opinions. These opinions raise many interesting legal issues, only some of which are discussed below.
Judge Tladi wrote that “[t]he Court has ordered Israel to ‘halt its military offensive in Rafah’. The reference to ‘offensive’ operations illustrates that legitimate defensive actions, within the strict confines of international law, to repel specific attacks, would be consistent with the Order of the Court. What would not be consistent is the continuation of the offensive military operation in Rafah, and elsewhere, whose consequences for the rights protected under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide has been devastating.” As noted above, this is the more natural reading of the Court’s order.


Judge Aurescu wrote that the principal order is “unclear as to whether the last part of it (starting with ‘which may inflict’) only refers to ‘any other action’ (which is not defined) or to both halting the Israeli military offensive and ‘any other action’. In my view, this measure needs to be interpreted [so] that it indicates as well the halt of the Israeli military offensive to the extent that it ‘may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.’” As noted above, this rewrites the Court’s order, inserting words (‘to the extent’) that it does not contain.


Judge Aurescu also wrote that the Court’s order “do[es] not affect in any way the legitimate right of Israel to undertake actions, which should be conducted in strict conformity with international law, including in a manner responding to the criteria of proportionality and necessity, to protect its civilian citizens and to free the hostages still held in the Rafah area by Hamas and other armed groups.” Assuming this passage refers to protecting Israeli civilians from specific attacks, and not from the long-term threat posed by Hamas and other armed groups, then there is no practical difference between Aurescu’s interpretation and Tladi’s.


Judge Nolte wrote that he “remain[s] unconvinced that the evidence presented to the Court provides plausible indications that the military operation undertaken by Israel as such is being pursued with genocidal intent…. The reason for today’s measure is, in my view, that Israel has not sufficiently demonstrated that it can ‘enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians’ without limiting its current military offensive in Rafah.” Judge Nolte noted “the repeated interruptions of humanitarian aid deliveries by private Israeli citizens, which the police and the military have not prevented,” as well as “continuing significant incendiary public speech in Israel, including by senior Israeli officials” including Israeli Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich and Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir. Judge Nolte therefore found “a risk for access to humanitarian aid urgently needed to ensure the survival of the Palestinian people in Gaza.”


Judge Nolte wrote that “[t]he reason for today’s measure is, in my view, that Israel has not sufficiently demonstrated that it can ‘enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians’ without limiting its current military offensive in Rafah.” According to Judge Nolte, “I considered it justified that the Court specify that [its prior orders] limit the current military offensive in Rafah as far as it could endanger the rights of the Palestinian people under the Genocide Convention, notably their access to basic humanitarian needs. The Court’s Order does not address military operations outside Rafah and the measure obliging Israel to halt the current military offensive in Rafah is conditioned by the need to prevent ‘conditions of life that could bring about [the] physical destruction in whole or in part’ of the Palestinian group in Gaza. Thus, this measure does not concern other actions of Israel which do not give rise to such a risk.” Again, whether we say that Israel must halt or limit its current offensive makes no practical difference. Either way, the current offensive cannot continue as currently planned, while limited military operations may be lawful.


Vice-President Sebutinde wrote a dissenting opinion setting out her understanding of the factual context and her reasons for voting against the new measures. Vice-President Sebutinde at times reads the Court’s orders narrowly to downplay them, at other times broadly to criticize them. She calls the measure “an overreach by the Court that has no link with South Africa’s plausible rights under the Genocide Convention” and that “implicitly orders Israel to disregard the safety and security of the more than 100 hostages still held by Hamas” then writes that “this measure does not entirely prohibit the Israeli military from operating in Rafah. Instead, it only operates to partially restrict Israel’s offensive in Rafah to the extent it implicates rights under the Genocide Convention.”


Finally, Judge ad hoc Barak wrote a dissenting opinion. Barak opens by attempting to portray a 13-2 vote to indicate a third set of provisional measures as a defeat for South Africa and a victory for Israel. According to Judge Barak, South Africa’s request was “rejected” and its “tactics failed” due to the “the specific, credible and up-to-date evidence provided by Israel, expertly and convincingly presented by its legal team during the hearings.” For anyone who reads the Court’s orders, or watched the oral proceedings, these passages are hard to take seriously.

More seriously, Judge Barak writes that “[t]he Court’s first measure is [] limited to offensive (and not defensive) military action in Rafah, and requires a halt only in so far as is necessary to protect the Palestinian group in Gaza from conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction.” Barak goes on to write that “the measure is a qualified one, whichpreserves Israel’s right to prevent and repel threats and attacks by Hamas, defend itself and its citizens, and free the hostages.” Indeed, the Court’s order does not prohibit Israel from pursuing those aims in ways that do not risk mass death from bombardment, displacement, starvation, and disease. The Court’s order does not prohibit a hypothetical military operation that Israel might carry out in theory. Instead, the Court’s order prohibits the actual military offensive that Israel is carrying out in Rafah.

---
More. Spying, hacking and intimidation: Israel's nine-year 'war' on the ICC exposed.
---
Lily Greenberg Call was a special assistant to the chief of staff at the US Department of the Interior Biden was my boss. I resigned because as a Jew I cannot endorse the Gaza catastrophe.


In dismissing calls for Netanyahu's arrest, the west is undermining its own world order..

After their dismissal of the ICC and ICJ calls on Israel to comply with international law, how can the US and its partners make a convincing case again that their rules are fair and universal, and so must be followed by all? It is brazenly clear that the rules-based order is not about democratic values, the rule of law and the sanctity of human lives, but the observance of a global hierarchy in which some lives are sacred and others are not.
One day, the Gaza war will be over. And what will confront Israel’s allies is a world in which that logic, now plainly stated, is rejected once and for all. The stakes are higher than they realise. They will reap not only moral disgrace, but the crumbling of their entire postwar world order.

[PointOfViewGun]

It does and so does the presence of the comma. Both point to a non-restrictive clause. To illustrate:
"The door that leads to the garden is open". This specifies a particular door out of multiple doors: a restrictive clause
"The door, which leads to the garden, is open" In this case there's only one door, or we already know which door is being referred to, and it happens to lead to the garden. "which leads to the garden" is merely descriptive.
Non restrictive clauses can be omitted without changing the essence of the sentence, in this example the fact that the door is open. In the case of the ICJ order the essence is apparently that Israel must cease the attack on Rafah and all other activities there.
That is what the Israeli's are arguing, but I don't see it. Unless we can assume sloppy language is being used, which seems an odd thing to do in the context of a court order.

The criteria is the classification. Within the context either choice of words lead to the same conclusion. In any case, Israel's actions do not leave need for interpretation.

[Ludicus]

Let's summarize -Israel continues to bomb Rafah, despite ICJ ruling.

[sumskilz]

Non restrictive clauses can be omitted without changing the essence of the sentence, in this example the fact that the door is open. In the case of the ICJ order the essence is apparently that Israel must cease the attack on Rafah and all other activities there.

This is true, but the clause establishes to what extent the order applies, so that’s not exactly the issue.

From Judge Aurescu’s accompanying statement:

[i]mmediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”) is somehow unclear as to whether the last part of it (starting with “which may inflict”) only refers to “any other action” (which is not defined) or to both halting the Israeli military offensive and “any other action”. In my view, this measure needs to be interpreted that it indicates as well the halt of the Israeli military offensive to the extent that it “may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. I also consider that it would have been consistent and clearer, from the perspective of the connection of this measure with the Genocide Convention which represents the ratione materiae basis of the Court’s jurisdiction and, at the same time, which establishes the limits of the Court’s action in response to the present Request

This echoes Judge Sebutinde’s assertion that the ruling “does not entirely prohibit the Israeli military from operating in Rafah. Instead, it only operates to partially restrict Israel’s offensive in Rafah to the extent it implicates rights under the Genocide Convention”. Aurescu’s point is that the ruling has to be interpreted this way otherwise it exceeds the court’s jurisdiction.

[Ludicus]

Because European leaders are so stupid, they don't realize that ICC decisions must be interpreted as Israel wants. Finally, unanimity in the European Union,

EU convenes Israel to discuss respect of human rights and ICJ

European Union foreign ministers unanimously agreed on Monday to call for an Association Council with Israel to discuss the country's compliance with its human rights obligations under the EU-Israel trade deal, also known as the Association Agreement.

The bloc also intends to use the meeting to confront Netanyahu's government about its compliance with Friday's ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ordered Israel to halt its intended military offensive in the city of Rafah.

[Muizer]

The Court’s order prohibits the actual military offensive that Israel is carrying out in Rafah.

Yeah that was my reading too. Surprised PovG would want to seek to interpreted it differently (i.e. in opposition to the rules of grammar and ostensibly in favour of Israel) but there you go. Apparently, when I say something on the matter it has to be contradicted no matter what.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yeah that was my reading too. Surprised PovG would want to seek to interpreted it differently (i.e. in opposition to the rules of grammar and ostensibly in favour of Israel) but there you go. Apparently, when I say something on the matter it has to be contradicted no matter what.

Except I didn't interpret it differently. You need to not falsely characterize what others have pointed out. You lied about basic facts about this conflict before. Don't continue to use such tactics. I objected to a word game you used to introduce validity of other interpretations and your attempt to undermine the court's expertise. When you say something like that it can indeed be rightfully contradicted.

[Muizer]

So you don't agree with Ludicus on the meaning of the order?

[PointOfViewGun]

So you don't agree with Ludicus on the meaning of the order?

Why would I not agree?

[Muizer]

Why would I not agree?

As far as I can tell Ludicus seems to interpret the order as prohibiting all military action. My point has been that if we assume grammar has been applied correctly that is indeed the case. Yet you interpret it as still permitted military action on condition that it doesn't risk civilians. So basically, I agree with Ludicus and you do not?

[PointOfViewGun]

As far as I can tell Ludicus seems to interpret the order as prohibiting all military action. My point has been that if we assume grammar has been applied correctly that is indeed the case. Yet you interpret it as still permitted military action on condition that it doesn't risk civilians. So basically, I agree with Ludicus and you do not?

Within the Rafah governance, yes, as indicated by the order, which is what he argued as well. This is not an order to cease all military action whatsoever in Gaza. I didn't argue that Israel could keep on invading Rafah if they don't target civilians. Israel already inflicted extensive casualties to Gazan civilians and Rafah is a place of higher risk of that which is what the court acknowledged. The issue you tried to create did not exist from the get go and you made it an issue to validate multiple interpretations while trying to call court's competence into question. Not so openly when you lied about basic facts from October 7, sure, but still...

[Ludicus]

Muizer, the ICC prohibits the actual massacre that Israel is carrying out in Rafah; also ordered Israel to open the Rafah border crossing with Egypt for the entry of large-scale humanitarian aid and to ensure access to Gaza for investigators and fact-finding missions.For a good reason, the European Union foreign ministers unanimously, I quote, "intends to use the meeting to confront Netanyahu's government about its compliance with Friday's ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ordered Israel to halt its intended military offensive in the city of Rafah"
--
I dare say, if Israel's apologists are persuasive enough, with a bit of luck they will convince some poor souls that the ICJ is on Netanyahu’s side. (I’m not referring to you, Muizer)
--
Once again, because it can't and shouldn't go unnoticed,
Harry Davies, Bethan McKernan and Yuval Abraham in Jerusalem and Meron Rapoport in Tel Aviv
Irael's covert war on the ICC exposed

As expected, shocking and shameful news received with total indifference by the worshippers of Netanyahu's criminal regime.

Because it matters. White House says ICC sanctions "not the right answer"

"Sanctions on the ICC are not an effective or appropriate tool to address U.S. concerns. We will work with Congress on other options to address the ICC overreach," she said.

(Other options, really?...) Translating:” ICC's overreach is outrageous-only when it comes to Israel or US allies.”
Which brings us to... The ICC Jurisdictional Regime; Addressing U.S. Arguments

[Muizer]

I didn't argue that Israel could keep on invading Rafah if they don't target civilians.

How do you square that with your earlier statement that:

Israel can battle Hamas but not in a way that endangers the civilians in Gaza.

And please explain using the text of the court order for reference. I'm not interested in what you want it to say but actually doesn't say.

[PointOfViewGun]

How do you square that with your earlier statement that:
And please explain using the text of the court order for reference. I'm not interested in what you want it to say but actually doesn't say.

You need to explain how what I said contradicts what you claim it contradicts.

[Ludicus]

Once again, because it can't and shouldn't go unnoticed,
Harry Davies, Bethan McKernan and Yuval Abraham in Jerusalem and Meron Rapoport in Tel Aviv
Irael's covert war on the ICC exposed

Less than twenty-four hours later, legal experts react,
Israeli campaign against ICC may be 'crimes against justice , say legal experts...

• Revealed: Israeli spy chief ‘threatened’ ICC prosecutor over war crimes inquiry
• Spying, hacking and intimidation: Israel’s nine-year ‘war’ on the ICC exposed

Excerpts,

Efforts by Israel’s intelligence agencies to undermine and influence the international criminal court (ICC) could amount to “offences against the administration of justice” and should be investigated by its chief prosecutor, legal experts have said…multiple leading international law experts said the conduct of Israeli intelligence services could amount to criminal offences.
The disclosures about Israel’s nine-year campaign against the court were published on Tuesday as part of a joint investigation by the Guardian, the Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine and the Hebrew-language outlet Local Call.

It details how the country’s intelligence agencies were deployed to surveil, hack, put pressure on, smear and allegedly threaten senior ICC staff.
Before Tuesday’s revelations, Khan had alleged that unspecified attempts to “impede, intimidate or improperly influence the officials of this court” had already been made by unnamed parties. Such conduct could constitute a criminal offence under article 70 of the court’s founding statute relating to the administration of justice.

Toby Cadman, a British barrister specialising in international criminal and humanitarian law, said the Guardian’s findings were “deeply disturbing” and include allegations that “constitute an attempt to pervert the course of justice through the use of threats” to the former ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.
Another ICC expert, Mark Kersten, an assistant professor in criminal law at the University of the Fraser Valley in Canada, said: “It is hard to imagine what could be a more blatant attempt to wrongfully interfere in a prosecutorial process.”

A senior Palestinian official, who asked not to be named in order to speak freely, said “The international community now has two options. Either change course and protect international law and international institutions or destroy the rules-based order for the sake of defending Israel.”

I wonder which senior leader said "this court was built for Africa and thugs like Putin".
---
Edit,

Weren't they calling their actions a "mistake" yesterday?
Second strike on tent camp kills 21 people and injures more than 60 near Rafah.The Israeli army denied it struck the area...

Israeli strikes on a tent camp in an evacuation area west of Rafah have killed at least 21 people, Gaza health authorities said, with more than 60 others injured.
Two days after an Israeli air strike on another camp stirred global condemnation, Gaza emergency services said four tank shells hit a cluster of tents in Al-Mawasi on Tuesday local time — a coastal area that Israel had advised civilians in Rafah to move to for safety.
At least 12 of the dead were women, according to medical officials in Gaza.
The Hamas-run health ministry said at least 64 others were injured.

[Muizer]

You need to explain how what I said contradicts what you claim it contradicts.

You don't see how those quotes appear contradictory? Rafah is in Gaza and the order does not specify different conditions imposed on Israel for fighting Hamas in one vs the other anyway.

[Muizer]

Just for the heck of it, the grammatical interpretation by ChatGPT, which agrees the ', which' is a non-restrictive clause.

Independent Clause:

"Israel shall immediately halt its military offensive" - This is the main clause and can stand alone as a complete sentence.

Coordinating Conjunction:

"and" - This conjunction connects two parts of the compound predicate.

Second Part of the Compound Predicate:

"any other action in the Rafah Governorate" - This phrase is part of the compound predicate connected by the conjunction "and" to the main clause.

Non-Restrictive Clause:

"which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" - This clause provides additional information about "any other action in the Rafah Governorate." It is a non-restrictive clause because it adds extra information that is not essential to the main point of the sentence. It is introduced by the relative pronoun "which."

So at least according to ChatGPT, Israel should simply halt its military offensive and any other action in the Rafah Governorate ............ period. The non-restrictive clause merely explains that the latter may inflict etc..

I'm sure people will want to interpret it differently, but the fact is that if the intent was for the last clause to be restrictive that could easily have been addressed by using 'that' instead of ',which', which would result in the following

Independent Clause:

"Israel shall immediately halt its military offensive" - This is the main clause and can stand alone as a complete sentence.

Coordinating Conjunction:

"and" - This conjunction connects two parts of the compound predicate.

Second Part of the Compound Predicate:

"any other action in the Rafah Governorate that may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" - This entire phrase is the second part of the compound predicate.

Restrictive Relative Clause:

"that may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" - This clause provides essential information about "any other action in the Rafah Governorate." It is a restrictive clause because it is essential to the meaning of the sentence, specifying what kind of action must be halted.

So the way I see it, it's either a non-restrictive clause or we assume the judges don't understand grammar.

And there you have the sum total of my arguments since I commented on the order. Feel free to disagree with ChatGPT / Grammar.

[PointOfViewGun]

You don't see how those quotes appear contradictory? Rafah is in Gaza and the order does not specify different conditions imposed on Israel for fighting Hamas in one vs the other anyway.

Clearly, you don't too since you're unable to provide a straightforward answer explaining how they contradict. Rafah is not the only place in Gaza where Hamas exists. It is, however, a place with relatively increased risks for civilian population due to existing Israeli offensive. That Israel chooses to focus on Rafah and not on clearing out Hamas from other parts of the Gaza strip in itself shows how serious Israel is with eradicating Hamas. Whats becoming abundantly clear is that Israel is in the Gaza strip to make it uninhabitable. Probably with the hopes of tipping the situation completely and have Palestinians flee to Egypt.

Just for the heck of it, the grammatical interpretation by ChatGPT, which agrees the ', which' is a non-restrictive clause.
So at least according to ChatGPT, Israel should simply halt its military offensive and any other action in the Rafah Governorate ............ period. The non-restrictive clause merely explains that the latter may inflict etc..
I'm sure people will want to interpret it differently, but the fact is that if the intent was for the last clause to be restrictive that could easily have been addressed by using 'that' instead of ',which', which would result in the following
So the way I see it, it's either a non-restrictive clause or we assume the judges don't understand grammar.
And there you have the sum total of my arguments since I commented on the order. Feel free to disagree with ChatGPT / Grammar.

Should I feed ChatGPT the past 10 pages or so of this thread and ask if you lied about basic facts concerning October 7?

[mishkin]

"I am an objective observer, I do not support either side but I have spent two hundred pages solely defending Israel's actions and questioning the innocence of the civilians in Gaza/they support Hamas". If it seems to you that I may be referring to you, it is because I am referring to you.

[Muizer]

Clearly, you don't too since you're unable to provide a straightforward answer explaining how they contradict.

I wanted to give you a chance to resolve it but fine, I'll try to do it for you as best I can:

If I put your two quotes together, you get this:

"[The court order says] Israel can battle Hamas but not in a way that endangers the civilians in Gaza but I do not argue [the court order says] Israel can keep on invading Rafah if they don't target civilians."

I see two elements here that could resolve a contradiction, but both can be dismissed:

1) the first talks of 'endangering lives' and the latter of 'targeting civilians'. But in the context of the court order we're discussing, we can assume both refer to the same thing.
2) the first talks of conditions that must be met to permit Israeli military actions in 'Gaza' and the latter for 'Rafah'. But as I have argued at lenth, in the context of the court order, there is no such distinction between the two locations. It does not say Israel can do one thing in Gaza and another in Rafah.

Over to you.

Rafah is not the only place in Gaza where Hamas exists. It is, however, a place with relatively increased risks for civilian population due to existing Israeli offensive.

I know that, but I'm just looking at what is written in the order. I am assuming that with 15 judges deliberating the text, every word and every comma has been weighed at length. I am not going to assume they put this text out in the world and then go "ah well, yeah we wrote something down, but 'everybody knows what we actually meant'". THAT would be to not take the judges seriously.

Should I feed ChatGPT the past 10 pages or so of this thread and ask if you lied about basic facts concerning October 7?

You think ChatGPT can tell you I have knowingly been telling untruths with the intent to deceive or mislead? You think it can judge my integrity, as you have been doing time and again?