I am a big fan of Passkeys. However, I will refuse to use Passkeys until I can sync them using my own infrastructure. I hope no major site makes them mandatory until then
What Hamas has done is horrendous and undefendable but there’s no military solution to removing extremism. They’ll just end up killing many more civilians than Hamas has murdered and cementing the next generation of extremists.
Israel will likely be able to crush Hamas as an organization but I doubt anything better will rise from its ashes. I’m certain it was Hamas’ goal to trigger such a reaction and with the escalation triggering a wider conflict.
They’ll just end up killing many more civilians than Hamas has murdered and cementing the next generation of extremists.
That’s basically Netanyahu’s entire MO. This attack has been a real boon for his brand of politics, especially given his recently waning support and legal troubles.
Learned-helplessness produces both Nihilism & Sadism.
The Russian soldiers’ habit of making torture-chambers everywhere proves this.
Russian culture’s “fate regime” concept of relationship also proves this ( it proves the learned-helplessness aspect of it ).
( apparently that article explaining how in Russia, people entirely accept that fate, and nothing else, decides who marries who, is now … gone??
Neither DuckDuckGO nor google have it… )
Deterrent requires that both parties have aversion to destruction.
However, when 1 party has become nihilist, then they can assault the other as a means of baiting the other into sadistic-aggression, in order that all the neighbours commit to annihilating the one who was successfully baited into demonstrating genocidal sadism.
Israel won’t exist, in 10 years, no matter what, now.
NOTHING can make the Arab world accommodate its life, now.
Nothing.
The Christian Bible’s Matthew 24 had a prophecy that is about to become historical-fact, in the coming decade.
That bit around verses 15-20 is the pertinent area.
Simply wait 1 decade, and see: if Israel still exists, as a country, in 2033, I’ll eat a hat.
And it was entirely preventable, had there been enough committment to having neutral authorities in West Bank ( UN ), and NO political-dishonesty OR nationalist bullying permitted from either side…
That bit around verses 15-20 is the pertinent area.
Simply wait 1 decade, and see: if Israel still exists, as a country, in 2033, I’ll eat a hat.
The nice thing about prophecies is that they can never be proven to be false. Indeed, one would have to examine the future to prove it wrong. Which is either impossible or unrealistic.
Me too I can make a ton of prophecies and claim they will be eventually right. I will never be wrong.
Let’s see. Let me prophesize that:
The US will cease to exist
We will encounter aliens
See where you are living right now? Eventually, it will be filled with lava.
See where you are living right now? Eventually, it will be flooded with water.
A giant comet populated with nyan cats will crash on Earth
However, you can be sure that in 2033 I will come back in this thread and have you eat a hat. Marking the date and the link in my calendar. If lemmy is still alive, that is
Wtf is this? Israel won’t exist in 10 years? The Arab world won’t accommodate them?
They are on better terms with much of the Arab world than they have ever been. They are certainly on better terms than Hamas is. Hamas has Hezbollah and Iran (Persian not Arab). Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Morocco, Bahrain, and Sudan all have formal relations with Israel. Turkey had long had formal relations with Israel.
And for most of those that are adamantly against Israel aren’t exactly in the position to really start something that they know would escalate to US involvement. You think Iran is going to Nuke them or something? Because Israel is rather established.
There are still over a hundred hostages. Crank down on Gaza…no electricity, etc…and you’ll eventually get some intel on where they are at. It’s war, and they put themselves in this position.
I assure you, Palestinian civilians didnt put themselves in Gaza. The Israeli government created the ghetto prison known as Gaza and relegated the Palestinians to it.
Egypt took Gaza in the '48 war, built camps and put Palestinians (then called Arabs, the word “Palestinian” still most often referred to Jews) in them. Nobody much cared until Israel took the territory in the Six Day War and Egypt refused to take it back after.
Likewise Jordan annexed West Bank, built its camps, put Palestinians in them and held it until '67. Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt all built camps for Palestinians WITHIN their own borders and refused to assimilate them or allow them to become citizens. They used Palestinians as pawns in their quest to eliminate the infidel state. It didn’t work. No one much cared unless the pawns can be used against Israel.
Palestinians who remained in Israel are now citizens with voting rights etc. Israel didn’t chuck them in camps like their neighbours did.
The camps are now cities by the way. But no one calls them that, cause “camps” is better to use against Israel.
@Rapidcreek I suppose you probably blame the citizens of North Korea for "harbouring" Kim Jong Un, too. But that's just not how life actually works.
Collective punishment of civillians is always a war crime, but blaming people with no access to free and fair elections in order to justify it is particularly cynical, especially when nearly half of them are still children.
You can take a walk through history and see oppressor and oppressed in every era. A common thread is when people are oppressed by internal forces they either revolt and take power or simply live with the oppression. Even the attempt to revolt is important.
Gaza has a two fold problem. First they ruled by Hamas who don’t give a shit about them. Plenty of Palestinians hate Hamas, but not enough to make a difference. Secondly, they are oppressed by Israel due to Hamas.
They can either live with this or revolt. They’ve chosen to live with it.
So according to you, Hamas is oppressing Palestinians, and Israel is oppressing Hamas, but it’s only righteous for Palestinians to stand up to Hamas. Isn’t it also important for Hamas to stand up to their oppressors?
After WWIi the UN created N Korea, because the Japanese that occupied the entire peninsula, had withdrawn and because the Soviets as well as the US both felt they should have control. Russia soon got bored with a sphere of influence in the Pacific.
It’s war, and they put themselves in this position.
Did they also put themselves in the inhumane conditions that sparked this war too? Or is decades of inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people immaterial to the situation?
Because Israel is a good part of the reason Hamas is as powerful as they are, so I guess they put themselves in this position too?
Yeah, who could ever know why Palestine harbors the group that Israel funded to delegitimize the more moderate political parties? It's not like the group Israel funded explicitly advocates for aggression against Israel in the name of freeing the Palestinians from the murderous boot of Israel and their decades long campaign of slowly exterminating the Palestinians and stealing all of their land.
they shouldn’t respond to an attack by killing innocent civilians also they’ve been brutally dehumanitizing and terrorising Palestinians in Gaza for years
The deliberate targeting of civilians is horrible. But it’s well documented that hamas uses people as meat shields, by using civilian buildings as ammo depots and rocket launching platforms. That’s, unfortunately, a fair target then…
gaza is literally a small territory surrounded by water and israel where do you think people would be that aren’t targets for missles that level entire city blocks?
Israel definitely could have avoided this, and not fuck up the whole situation so much, but it’s not a simple matter… and self defense is a simple matter… if someone shoots at you, you kill them. That’s what happens when you take a gun. If you massacre a bunch of civilians, then people are going to shoot at you and your accomplices with passion
Military targets yes, if there is a missile launcher or ammo in an israeli building, yes it is a valid target. You have to right to kill anyone who’s actively trying kill you.
I understand that Zelensky has no choice but support Netanyahu. But it seems Netanyahu's a monster who forces Zelensky call for other nations to join for Israel's psyop on utilizing genocide.
the fact that they were victims of terrorism as a publication does not suddenly exempt them from having dumb takes, and bluntly their “satire” is often far closer to actual islamophobia than humor.
Most Western countries have to be seen as pro-Israel no matter what to deter accusations of anti-semitism or pro-nazism. Charlie Hebdo used to be scathing satire and now is just the magazine for Islamophobic European neolibs or conservatives. Its bush league satire and really low effort and blatant racism to troll Muslims.
How does this help reducing noise? I think with modern cars, tires generate notably more noise than the engine unless the speed is below 30 km/h. I hear no difference between a petrol car and electric when they’re driving past me at 50-60 km/h.
They make make more noise while accelerating which I would presume would be something that happens often in a city center with lots of stops and starts.
Obama changed the military’s criteria for civilian deaths so he could pretend his numbers were lower.
I don’t know that I’d call it an opinion. Civilian deaths are an eventuality we have no choice but to accept, especially here in the US, where we’re making war in six, seven, or eight countries at once and it’s normal.
The fact that people don’t understand the differences in style and purpose between fact-based reporting and opinion pieces is a travesty. There is no way this can be anything other than an opinion piece because of its topic and tone. Whether you agree or disagree or find its position to be self-evident is irrelevant. It simply does not meet the standards of traditional fact-based reporting. Which people today don’t seem to understand the value of.
The travesty is how many people are unable to say this out loud. Everyone is stuck in their black & white tribalism, making them blind for their own sides atrocities.
You can be pro Palestine and still condemn Hamas. You can be critical of the Israeli government and still grief for all the innocent Hamas victims. It's not actually that hard to be a decent human being.
I can be pro-palestinian people and still think that after several decades of not being able to suppress the violent factions inside their nation, they should completely bail off from that general area.
All nations are built and maintained by violence, either directly or by threat of it.
It’s a core component of sovereignty. To be able to call your government sovereign you must have the capacity to resist both external and internal actors from being able to overthrow you.
You must also be willing and able to use violence against those under your rule who disobey your laws (i.e, arresting a murderer).
That’s probably the norm. Finland, the posterboy of peace, started its independence with a civil war and continued by joining the Nazis in WW2 against Soviet Union.
Seems to me that there are two kinds of nations on this planet: dead ones and those that were at some point based on violence.
The travesty is how many people are unable to say this out loud. Everyone is stuck in their black & white tribalism, making them blind for their own sides atrocities.
Personally I don’t want to say it out loud because I’m just so mentally exhausted from the screaming. I know (like know, not just feel) that if I say this out loud in a more public space then somebody is gonna scream at me over it. And I just don’t want that anymore. I feel in this instance it’s better to just keep silent because I just hate it when people get so uppity at me over this kind of thing.
That’s simply not true. If you hide ammunition, fighters amongst civilians, to use the as meat shield or their deaths as propaganda, they become collateral damage.
It’s horrible, but Hamas is counting on this! They could avoid this, by not hiding behind their own people.
Targeting civilians specificaly is a war crime.
EDIT: please, do explain how it’s ok to hide behind civilians… sorry, this doesn’t help
True, they (israel government) fucked up the place, in so many ways. They’re not the only actors, but they’re the ones with most power and possibilities.
They are still effing up, because we’re talking about men of war with stupidly large guns, afraid (with good reason) for their whole people, who maybe know victims, know a hostage… everybody knows what happens when warriors are mad… so why the fuck poke that bear?
There’s no good move. If israel doesn’t react, hamas will attack again, because hamas wants to exterminate every jew, not peace. If they react, they have to take out civilians because hamas uses them as human shields. And now with all that rage, the most racists and extremists from each side will have a chance to assuage their bloodlust.
Hamas have ruined Gaza’s future in a way that, in almost 3 decades of following this conflict, I never thought would be possible. And the racists in Israels government are living their wet dream.
so if hamas is exploiting civilians for their own protection, they should kill their victims too? cool dude. you’re totally not justifying killing civilians! it’s not technically a war crime, so its fine! fuck. off.
What is it with beehaw users and being super eager to kill kids?
Youre the 5th Ive seen who is just so damn excited to excuse killing civilians. You understand thats not a normal thing for rational adults to want, yes?
oh, sorry, did you not say killing crowds of civilians in the hopes that a hamas member was among them was a totally excusable act, and labelled as just unfortunate collateral damage in war?
I could have sworn you said that, but my lemmy app does bug out sometimes, maybe I clicked on the wrong comment.
So you dont think killing crowds of innocent people in the hope that there might have been a terrorist among them is excusable?
If you hide ammunition, fighters amongst civilians, to use the as meat shield or their deaths as propaganda, they become collateral damage.
Huh. Weird, that looks like your text copy and pasted right here, where you say that killing civilians under the claim of targeting “hidden fighters” among their ranks is excusable collateral damage of war.
Same argument used to defend the atomic bombing of hiroshima, another well known war crime. The city had a well established military headquarters and arms depot, tucked away in the center of civilian housing and business, after all. Just more collateral damage, right?
No, see, cause Im not some sadistic loser, I understand you can address threats in a crowd without killing the crowd.
There are plenty of non lethal incapacitation weapons that are specifically designed for hostiles surrounded by civilians. There are plenty of options for not killing innocent people that arent “guess I gotta die!”
You arent being argued against in bad faith, youre just being argued against by decent human beings. I know, shocking for you, but normal folk arent excited to kill palestinians.
that frankly isn’t the situation that we’re dealing with. the idea that israel either has to let Hamas operate unchallenged or kill civilians is a vast oversimplification of how conflict works, and giving the IDF blanket permission to kill civilians if it also hurts Hamas is fucking monstrous. you suck.
all civilian casualties are inadmissible. its not wrong, its a moral imperative, and one that the state of Israel is blatantly disregarding. the framing that “okay, these civilian causalities are okay” is fucking monstrous, and gives a ready made excuse for Israel to escalate violence in Gaza.
You’re right, the Israeli should just say “too bad guys, they have hostages, we can’t shoot in that direction, check mate” and let hamas slaughter them
the scenario you’re imagining doesn’t exist. this isn’t a rock paper scissors thing, where Israel either shoots through hostages to kill insurgents or dies themselves. if Hamas is hiding amongst civilians, they aren’t attacking Israel, they’re hiding. if they’re attacking Israel, they aren’t in a crowd of Palestinian civilians. the IDF does not need to have a shootout with civilians in the crossfire to protect its people. the IDF does not need to bomb civilian residences to wage war against an insurgency.
you are so willing to conflate the two, assume that Israel must kill or be killed themselves. that is a fucking falsehood. there is so fucking much a military force can do to defend against attack that doesn’t involve shelling apartment buildings, shooting into crowds, and otherwise being monsters.
for what it’s worth i think we’ve about exhausted what can be said on this topic past your own comment; i don’t think further responses between you and @khalic will really go anywhere and i’ve already nuked a bunch of the discussion downthread because it devolved completely.
No one is saying “all these civilian casualties are ok”, stop oversimplifilying the situation.
I know it’s tempting to make blanket statements about moral imperatives from your armchair, religion has been doing that to us for centuries, but it turns out the real world is actually full of moral dilemmas, where there IS no outcome where no one dies, and all you can do is pick the least bad option.
“All civilian casualties are inadmissible” is the coldest of cold takes, right there next to, “well I don’t think anyone should have a war at all!” Like, great, thanks, why didn’t anyone think of that?
i don’t think anyone should have a war at all. there, are you happy? i’m frankly uninterested in litigating what hypothetical circumstances under which it might be okay to kill a civilian.
I would argue a blanket statement of “killing civilians is always reprehensible” is a vast oversimplification of how conflict works.
Yeah, it sucks, war sucks, and it often turns out that the least bad option involves a decision where innocent people die. I know it feels like a hot take to say we shouldn’t give blanket permission to kill civilians, but it turns out no one is claiming that.
This thread makes it clear that lemmy commenters are not equipped to debate the vanilla trolly problem, let alone the Iranian/Palestinian conflict.
“killing civilians is always reprehensible” as a moral statement has nothing to do with the mechanics of conflict. i’m telling you what i believe. giving room for acceptable civilian casualties in a moral framework provides a ready made justification for bad actors, that so long as they present a situation as looking enough like the acceptable kind of civilian casualty then its fine that an innocent person was killed.
i am taking issue with the rhetoric of acceptable casualties. no. there are only casualties, and they are all horrific. rhetoric that is not an explicit condemnation of war can be used as a justification for it.
Anytime you are doing any kind of military or police action within a civilian area there is always the risk of unintended civilian harm.
If police and military forces took this doctorine that any amount of risk is too much then they simply would be unable to operate.
There has to be a certain amount of acceptable civilian risk and that should be proportional to the threat you are attempting to stop.
Just to clarify, I’m not advocating that Israel is taking acceptable risks. But I am advocating that those risks will always exist with ANY police or military action and the primary debate is over where the red line of acceptable/unacceptable is.
Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, it’s also majority landlocked and has been under a naval and air blockade for nearly 2 decades.
You can make the case about the selection of which some specific civilian areas Hamas utilizes are intended to maximize the outage if struck, but ultimately there is NOWHERE inside Gaza that isn’t a civilian area, period. It’s just a matter of degrees i.e. retail shops vs schools.
Just looked at the gaza satellite map to be sure. There are kms of fields between the border and most cities. They’re cowards hiding behind their people.
Those are literally watched by automated and remote control machine guns, as well as 24/7 surveillance drones.
So you’re military strategic insight is to sit in an open field, just outside of range of the remote control 50 cal turrets, and wait for the drone to drop a PGM?
Feel free to browse my comment history. I’m no apologist for terrorists acts, but I’m also not blind to the realities on the ground, and what obstacles any opposition militant group within Gaza would have to plan around.
No, I’m saying that any military strategy has to operate around it’s own operational and environmental constraints, and the capabilities and obstacles of the opposing force.
Whatever you’re opinions are on any conflict, you should still understand that rational actors will respond accordingly to their constraints.
Rational doesn’t mean moral, it means they have a clear mission and objective, and a plan to achieve it.
You’re suggesting that instead of being combat effective, they should instead suicide themselves by operating in an open field in close proximity, and with no cover, to a vastly superior force. That would be irrational.
Who gives a fuck if it’s combat effective when it kills your people? If you’re not fighting for the lives of your people? What are you fighting for? In the case of Hamas, the answer is in their charter: kill all jews. They admit it themselves ffs.
I’m providing an extremely high level and simplified outline of the operational and strategic constraints for militants operating within Gaza, not moral commentary on it.
If you want my opinions, or moral judgments, feel free to browse my comment history. Jump into any of those conversations if you disagree.
Sorry, I get your point. It’s getting late here, I got carried away. You are right, it’s a tactically valid choice, but I really hope I’d kill myself before I do something like that, but life can fuck you up real bad so who knows…
Hamas could argue that the IDF is hiding behind their civilian population as well. It’s simply not a coherent defense for indiscriminate violence, you can’targue that one side is collateral damage and the other are victims.
Israel claims they are only striking “based on intelligence” but its obvious from the reports inside Gaza that this is not true, they’re bombing at random with the explicit goal of punishing Gazan civilians for being blockaded in Gaza with Hamas.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.