5 ms·

What evidence is "out there"? So far, there's no evidence, from what is being reported by legitimate news agencies who saw the supposed evidence. Example: https

What evidence is "out there"? So far, there's no evidence, from what is being reported by legitimate news agencies who saw the supposed evidence. Example: https://apnews.com/article/business-europe-middle-east-israel-security-services-e90e371a68ceb22b7f15f4b381ff5412 https://apnews.com/article/business-europe-middle-east-israe...

q1w2 5y ago
In 2018 all payment processors (MC/Visa/Amex) banned payments to Al-Haq due to allegations that they forwarded money to PFLP, so this is not new news. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2019-001932_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2019-00193... This was based on testimony given in court by two Palestinian accountants that Al-Haq was funneling money to terrorism. It should be noted that Al-Haq does not make disclose either the sources or destinations of donation money.
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  Those allegations came from the same place this “evidence” did.
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    Since when is testimony from their own Palestinian accountants not considered evidence?
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      > The dossier relies almost entirely on the interrogation of Said Abedat and Amru Hamudeh, who worked as accountants for the Union of Health Committees, a separate group which was outlawed in January 2020. Both were reportedly fired in 2019 for embezzling funds, and were later detained by the Shin Bet. Their lawyers could not be reached for comment. Not their own accountants
      - starik36 5y ago
        Why are you splitting hairs??? They worked as accountants through 2019. So obviously they have knowledge of where the funds were being funneled to.
        ComputerGuru 5y ago
        No one is splitting hairs; this is the very crux of the matter. They worked as accountants for a different organization altogether.
        starik36 5y ago
        Given that the accountants gave testimony - it would stand to reason they had knowledge of it.
        ComputerGuru 5y ago
        I know you're arguing from a very partial perspective, but if you'd read the 972mag article it's insanely clear that the accounts' testimony would be thrown out as hearsay in any real court of law. They weren't involved in the supposed activity the other organizations are accused of doing based on their testimony, they didn't see it happen, they just "know" that it happened. But I feel like there is no use continuing to argue this with you, so peace out.
        starik36 5y ago
        > no use continuing to argue To misquote Capt Picard responding to two parties complaining that they they'll never find common ground: "On the contrary. We've agreed that there is no use continuing to argue".

q1w2 5y ago

In 2018 all payment processors (MC/Visa/Amex) banned payments to Al-Haq due to allegations that they forwarded money to PFLP, so this is not new news. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2019-001932_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2019-00193... This was based on testimony given in court by two Palestinian accountants that Al-Haq was funneling money to terrorism. It should be noted that Al-Haq does not make disclose either the sources or destinations of donation money.

ComputerGuru 5y ago
Those allegations came from the same place this “evidence” did.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  Since when is testimony from their own Palestinian accountants not considered evidence?
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    > The dossier relies almost entirely on the interrogation of Said Abedat and Amru Hamudeh, who worked as accountants for the Union of Health Committees, a separate group which was outlawed in January 2020. Both were reportedly fired in 2019 for embezzling funds, and were later detained by the Shin Bet. Their lawyers could not be reached for comment. Not their own accountants
    - starik36 5y ago
      Why are you splitting hairs??? They worked as accountants through 2019. So obviously they have knowledge of where the funds were being funneled to.
      - ComputerGuru 5y ago
        No one is splitting hairs; this is the very crux of the matter. They worked as accountants for a different organization altogether.
        starik36 5y ago
        Given that the accountants gave testimony - it would stand to reason they had knowledge of it.
        ComputerGuru 5y ago
        I know you're arguing from a very partial perspective, but if you'd read the 972mag article it's insanely clear that the accounts' testimony would be thrown out as hearsay in any real court of law. They weren't involved in the supposed activity the other organizations are accused of doing based on their testimony, they didn't see it happen, they just "know" that it happened. But I feel like there is no use continuing to argue this with you, so peace out.
        starik36 5y ago
        > no use continuing to argue To misquote Capt Picard responding to two parties complaining that they they'll never find common ground: "On the contrary. We've agreed that there is no use continuing to argue".