I encourage everyone to at least read his wikipedia page. Judge for yourself if someone with his experience might have something of substance to say.
Ok, lets take a look at the IISS table because the sipri only uses estimates for Russia. When you look at the source of the IISS table you get to a graph which shows that while for all other countries expenditure, the one for Russia and China have been ppp adjusted, meaning that the actual expenditure is different. The adjustment tells you what worth of goods you could buy from I'm assuming US market. Why the wiki table shows only these recalculated values for just Russia and China is beyond me. I also found an actually accessible article version of the FT https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/russias-2024-military-budget-exceeds-total-eu-defense-spending-ft/ar-AA1yWN0u To sum up the Russian expenditure DID exceed the european as in the FT, it only may be unclear what weapons they bought with it, but for the argument that EU outspends them, that is wrong.
If the Palestinians had that power they would hand Bibi and most of his cabinet over to the ICJ for their war crimes. Then of course large part of the parliament and probably most of IDF members who participated in the genocide. Then they would hand over the settlers for their crimes. And maybe later they would hand over most of the european colonialists that call themselves israeli now. Now even though IDF is the most moral army in the world, I see no intention of theirs to adhere to not commiting war crimes like genocide, so I don't think that they will 'remove' themselves. Though if they did I also wouldn't blame them. As for Palestinians, they seem to stick to other means of resistance for now.
Looking at the comments, has anyone actually read the article?
Finally some good news.
In 2007, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in a case involving Bosnia and Serbia, established that the obligation to refrain from providing weapons or other assistance begins the moment a state becomes aware of the existence of a serious risk that genocide may be committed. Now would you agree or disagree that by issuing the warrants or even before claiming actions "consistent with genocide", the us was "aware of serious risk"? If it did then its punishable by Article 3, which deals with complicity, which itself then constitutes genocide.
Is that what he said? No. Explanation does not equal justification. Just like the oct 7th does not justify the genocide in gaza, but it certainly is a part of its explanation and one may even come to a conclusion that it was provocative. I cannot understand how do people still have this brainfog when it comes to basic logic and context in these mattters
If they were puppets, how could they come to their current conclusions? There are real puppets like for example German and now Polish governments, but the issue that icj, icc are facing is that how can you regulate crimes of empires, when they have too much power. Well for now lets at least record their crimes. So that in future they will remain in memory and if the power balance shifts, sanctions will follow.
then you don't know much about him
Chomsky is alive at 96
Well to his credit he, as of now, still murdered less people than Kissinger.