Local butcher says someone chopped up this cow and put it into nice little convenient paper packages with a bit of twine for the low, low price of $6/lb
What happened to respecting states rights? So sick of the judicial branch in the US, the most untethered and corrupt branch of them all. Which is saying a lot considering the state of the legislative branch.
Republicans only care about state’s rights when they can use state law to push one of their terrible policies at state level because they can’t force it nationally.
Until 15 years ago, there wasn’t an individual right to bear arms, so talking about “the Bill of Rights” really just means “the Conservative Supreme Court”.
Pretty sure that the “shall not be infringed” part of bearing arms covers that. The 2nd amendment is an individual right, so there you go. If you are trying to say that the 2nd is somehow the only non-individual right in the Bill of Rights, I’d argue poor context interpretation. If you are trying to say that it requires militia affiliation, I’d argue that the Militia Act that required the people to supply their own guns and ammo pretty effectively proves the people were supposed to be armed before being called to the militia. If you are arguing that you just don’t like the 2nd, then get ~75% of the country and state governments to agree with you and update or repeal it with the required constitutional amendment.
If the Second Amendment was clear in its individual right to bear arms for personal protection (a much different thing from just owning guns), then it wouldn’t have taken until 2008 for it to be recognized, and anyone pretending the Second Amendment is a clearly worded amendment with broadly agreed on meaning is just delusional.
Previous supreme courts have ruled that the constitution only applied to the federal government, allowing states to restrict the rights of their citizens to vote, speak, assemble, etc. Does that mean that it isn’t clear that our individual and constitutional rights were intended to apply at a state or local level? I am not saying that it is broadly agreed upon, but I do think that the founder’s documents and correspondence surrounding the Bill of Rights, along with contemporary laws like the Militia Act, provide enough context for it being an individual right.
In 1792 the government required that the individual would have their own rifle, bayonet, gunpowder, and ammunition to bring with them if they answered the called to join the militia, which is hard to do if they didn’t have the right to individually own said guns and ammo. Same with the fact that every other amendment in the BoR is an individual right.
If it was only the ability to own guns so that they could be brought in case the owner was called to join a militia, but not to use them in any other way why would it specify the right to bear those arms and not just to keep or own them? If the individual right is to own guns and use them as tools for hunting and sport, where does the limitation on using them for defense come from? Are knives or any other tools that can be used in a fight included in any of this? I’d consider knives under the right to bear arms, plus it is a frequent argument that they serve other purposes so get an exception.
Ignoring the inexplicable diversion into the Constitution’s applicability to states.
You keep arguing against a straw man (no ownership) rather than the actual point (no absolute right to free carry/use). You can have an individual right to own weapons for the purpose of being a part of a militia without having an inherent right to use those weapons for other purposes.
As to the “bear arms” it’s still in the context of a militia. You can’t be arrested for being in a militia. You and your buddies can march around, showing that you’re ready to rebel against an oppressive government, but that doesn’t mean YOU can individually walk down Main Street firing into the air. There’s a prosocial and political benefit from the citizenship being able to rebel, there isn’t one for having random people be constantly armed for resolving personal disputes.
I thought it was pretty clear my response on supreme court interpretation changing when rather wrong, either obviously or on new technicality, was directly addressing your statement that the individual right to both own and carry arms changed in 2008. I also think you may want to brush up on what a straw man is, as I am directly engaging with your statements to get a handle on your viewpoint and opinion. I apologize if you were saying that we have a right to own military hardware and NFA regulated weapons, as long as we never use them alone or for personal reasons (this would be taking your statement to a probably absurd degree).
My mention of ownership was because prior to 2008, states could prevent you from buying guns as well as preventing bearing them. I would also like to point out that it is certainly legally shakey to form a private militia or paramilitary organization, with multiple laws and even state constitutions outlawing it. I mention this because outlining an individual right to bear arms to prevent the government from arresting their own soldiers for carrying a gun under military orders just doesn’t make sense. I am also curious if you also believe that hunters for the past 200+ years have been breaking the law, using their guns for purposes other than military service. I’m also pretty sure walking down Main Street firing guns randomly is a crime, reckless endangerment at the least, even under the most lax interpretation of the 2nd, and completely different than acting against a credible threat to your life.
Also rebellion is especially illegal, even if/when benefitial or even necessary. It is definitely an opinion that having an armed populace has no prosocial benefits that can be debated. Minority and oppressed populations are harder to victimize when armed. Anyone who has saved their life thought defensive use of a weapon would also disagree with you. The police have no legal obligation to save or help you or anyone else, so making self defense illegal outside of pure hand to hand combat leaves people vulnerable. If melee arms are allowed under the 2nd and the inferred right to self defense, why wasn’t there a distinction made on what kind of arms. Or are they not covered under the 2nd? Genuinely curious on your view of using an available knife or bat or crowbar if someone tries to gravely injure or kill you.
I would also like to argue that no other right in the Bill of Rights requires you to be in or part of a group, either actively or passively, to have them apply or be exercised. Even though a free press is essential for a free society, we don’t have to get a degree in journalism or join a newspaper to have freedom of speech and association.
Militias aren’t government controlled. That’s the whole damn point. You regulate them if they’re doing dangerous stuff like practicing next to a school, but you can’t do things that are effectively preventing them from existing.
For your questions on hunters and ownership and whatever, there’s a difference between constitutionally protected and legal. States can say hunting with guns of various types (you’ll note there are restrictions). You don’t need the constitution to make something legal and it not being constitutionally protected doesn’t make it illegal. States can legalize or restrict firearms for anything that does not prevent the citizenry from forming a well-regulated militia. Having your guns locked up and disassembled when not in use in training doesn’t prevent you from forming an effective(-ish) militia so DC vs. Heller was badly decided (5-4! it was a contentious decision split along political lines).
All the other weapons are arms too and if owned for the purpose of militia service, should be legal. If not, states can decide which weapons are appropriate for which purposes. Texas can decide cowboys were super cool and everyone should have a mandatory six shooter while peaceful Hawaii can decide guns are good for hunting pigs and bad for going to the beach. And if we decide we want to change one or the other, that’s our business, because the government can regulate things that don’t involve preventing the citizenry from rising up against it.
Now that is a very interesting idea, I’ve never heard anyone claim that militias are independent private armies not subject to government control. The militia exists purely for the government to mobilize in times of disaster or war, be it state or federal, as outlined in Title 10 Chapter 12 of the US Code. The National Guard and Naval militia are the standing, organized militia. All able bodied men age 17 to 45 are considered part of the unorganized militia, and subject to being called upon by the government through selective service. All or nearly all 50 states have explicit laws banning private citizen militias and/or paramilitary organizations, which as been affirmed at least twice by the supreme court and as recently as 2008. Any overthrow of the government that no longer is of and by the people would be carried out by the people in general, not a militia or any defined organization.
I think I see your point one constitutionality vs legality, though I would say that all law stems from the powers granted by the constitution and thus are intrinsically linked. If something is enumerated in the constitution, it does not fall to the states to manage in my opinion, as the states only get the “everything not outlined” to legislate in my opinion.
I appreciate your viewpoint on this, thank you for engaging with me on this topic. I may fundamentally disagree with your conclusions, but I can see where you’re coming from now I think and this has been very enlightening.
Hawaii is a colonial project and isn’t respected by the federal court circuits in the same manner that continental states are. It’s closer to Guam and Puerto Rico than other states in that it carries disproportionate financial and military burdens, including the effects from the Jones act for example.
I gotta say, my understanding of MLism is pretty spotty, but a Lemmygrad user opposing the Jones Act seems really weird.
Anti-Jones arguments are generally just raw-freetradeism – advocating to remove protectionist regulations so businesses can off-shore (literally off shore) their shipping to cheaper foreign crews, with the (supposed) benefit being that they will save money and then pass the savings on to the consumer. Were you a big NAFTA fan as well?
Prices in US territories such as Guam, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico are sky-high due to the Jones Act to protect American industries at the expense of colonized people. It’s more about the where the ship was built and who operates them than the workers themselves.
Yes, I am a big fan of NAFTA as well. The only parts I dislike are the parts that allow free movement of capital, disallow free movement of people, and protection of IP.
Wild. And the unions who argue against free-tradeism are the bad guys?
Labor is almost always the largest contributor to any business’s costs and offshoring it is very popular with capital, so waving away the 75% American crew requirement as “not about the workers” is wrong. From a DOT study, in 2010 an American crew costs 5x what a foreign crew does.
I live in Hawaii and while I don’t like paying more to subsidize US domestic shipbuilding (if the government wants to subsidize our shipyards, they should do it themselves), but when the major voices advocating for this (in Hawaii) are Republicans, libertarians, and business-oriented Democrats like Ed Case (one can argue those aren’t really three separate categories), I get wary. Because this sure looks like every other time capital wanted to stop having to pay so many expensive Americans with their benefits and labor protections when they could instead offload to foreign workers without any of that. And they pinky swear promise they’ll give us cheaper stuff in return rather than just pocketing the difference.
Your bad guy, good guy view of the world is myopic.
American labor vs International labor is a false dialectic that is used to pit working class against each other by the capital. You do realize that right? How is the Jones Act about the workers as you state when it doesn’t stipulate better working conditions, better pay, or ownership in the business itself? I don’t think you’re seriously arguing that the main reason for the price gouging that is happening in Hawaii is due to higher pay for American crew members, so I’ll ignore that.
In general, Marxists are internationalists and we don’t care about protecting American workers over other workers. I would be a syndicalist if I argued for the supremacy of the union.
You can talk all you want about an international brotherhood, but these are people’s livelihoods you’re dismissing as unimportant.
And requiring American labor IS stipulating working conditions, because there is a very real difference between the working conditions of Americans and foreign sailors. This sounds like all you ever engage in is theory, while capital favors foreign workers because they don’t have the same power (and expense) that American workers have.
Much of the American owned fishing fleet is entirely staffed by much cheaper foreign labor unable to leave their ships because their American company can get away with not applying for work visas. They didn’t just happen to end up with foreign crews effectively held captive during port calls, they do it because they’re cheaper and unable to easily challenge their bosses on conditions.
This isn’t a case of an open labor market where everyone is on an equal footing and Americans simply choose not to do this work. Americans simply can’t work for 70 cents an hour and bosses prize workers that don’t have worker protections and can’t demand more.
For many boat owners, the fishermen are a bargain: Bait and ice can cost more than crew salaries. Some of the foreign workers in Hawaii earn less than $5,000 for a full year. By contrast, the average pay for an American deckhand nationwide last year was $28,000, sometimes for jobs that last just a few months, according to government statistics. Experienced American crew members working in Alaska can make up to $80,000 a year.
An American crew has recourse and the force of law when an employer just refuses to pay their workers.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard routinely inspect the Hawaiian boats. At times, fishermen complain they’re not getting paid and officers say they tell owners to honor the contracts. But neither agency has any authority over actual wages.
When your labor solidarity philosophy leads you to support and defend the position of capital, a position known to depower workers and empower abuse, it feels like that’s the point where you should be thinking about what the whole point is.
So you are deliberately ignoring your previous point about how the main business cost and therefore the reason for the high prices in Hawaii is due to higher wages for American sailors. It’s curious how you weren’t actually arguing in good faith then.
You do realize that America as a country can simply change its regulation to stipulate equal pay and treatment for foreign crew members who dock in American ports or are employed by American companies, right? You are arguing that Americans and American companies are allowed to treat foreign workers under horrible conditions, so it is labor solidarity to employ only American workers. Do you see how deranged that sounds when we get down to the meat of it?
What? This response is incoherent. American crews cost more, significantly more than foreign crews, and that has a significant impact on costs. Labor is 2/3 of the operating cost for domestic shipping and 1/3 for foreign shipping. Domestic workers costing more and offshoring being cheaper aren’t some new theory, they’re the bedrock motivation for global free trade. Are you a real person?
And why do you ignore that your philosophy just happens to align with capital? This just read like a neoliberal screed about supporting the global south through deregulation.
Ahhh here comes the bot accusation for you liberals as always. You still haven’t shown how the Jones Act actually help workers, and are arguing for the sake of arguing if you’re committed to your bit of saying that the higher prices in Hawaii are due to labor costs.
I see you’ve again ignored that your anti-protectionist political philosophy lines up exactly with the desires of capital and against that of organized labor.
I’ve read this philosophy before, from proud neoliberals. That’s why I question your authenticity.
You are arguing that protectionism is pro-labor? I don’t think you exactly understand what marxist ideology entails. Again, you are dodging the question on whether you truly believe that labor cost is the reason for high prices in Hawaii or if you were arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Organized labor sure thinks it is. And it’s not like these free-trade jobs are going to organized labor elsewhere, it’s going to people being exploited with no recourse.
And yes, I think it’s very likely labor is a major component of shipping cost increase from the Jones Act, and would love to see you provide literally any proof otherwise, because I’ve shown you a study of costs that directly compares them. I am notably not saying it’s only cost, but it is almost certainly a major driver, for the simple fact that labor is almost always the major cost in a business and why capital is so desperate to offshore or replace it.
I’ve answered your question. Why is your position aligned with capital?
Republicans want all power consolidated at the level they can most effectively control. They were only ever about “states’ rights” because they typically are better at capturing state governments than national institutions.
If you see that European car makers sell the same car in China for less than half than they charge at home, you know they are basically milking us just for extra profit.
Except it’s rarely the “same car”. For example a Tesla Model 3 manufactured in China has an LFP lithium-ion battery, while the US manufactured ones use an NCA lithium-ion battery. It’s by far the most expensive component of the car and LFP batteries are much cheaper.
There are often other differences too - such as optional extras being standard in one market. And warranties vary (those are not free - it costs money to fix faulty cars and they factor it into the sale price).
actually they’ve been selling the LFP version in North America for a while now. Even with the extra import costs and reduced government grant due to a Chinese battery, it still ends up cheaper.
Not true. Most products aren’t the cost of the materials. There are a lot of included expenses in the price of a product like the cost of labor. They’re also not the same cars.
I am well aware that there are costs beside materials and labor. In my company, I’m part of those other costs - I’m R&D. The point is still: Why shall we bear all those costs and others don’t? Don’t expect people being happy about being handled gross unfair.
They’re also not the same cars.
Yes, there are differences. But they are small, and could be incorporated in a low-cost version of European cars, too - if they actually want a low cost version here.
Why shall we bear all those costs and others don’t
That sounds like standard supply demand. If you can bear it, and there is no alternative, you will. But moreover as was mentioned there are reasons that may require a product being different prices in different markets as operating expenses are not the same. The simple cost of launching a product in different markets incurs different costs, and thus different prices. That’s a trivial example, and with vehicles it gets really complex at the regulatory level, especially in regulatory-rich countries which are common in the EU.
If you can bear it, and there is no alternative, you will.
And that is the point that will break the European car makers necks. The Chinese just start being alternatives, just like Japanese cars were in the 80s and 90s.
To give it credit, Japanese cars are now among the best in class, and can be enjoyed on a global market at a “reasonable” price. Took them a few decades to get there though. When/if Chinese manufacturers get to that level - that would be a win for the common consumer anywhere. And European companies with their trend to sell less, but more expensive, cars, will likely be outcompeted.
Biden has been doing a lot of good work. I wasn’t a fan when he ordered the rail workers back to work but since then be has increased the cost of carbon in negotiations, canceled the debt he was able to without the Senate and proposed relaxing drug restrictions on cannabis.
He isn’t perfect but it’s more good news than I got through 2016-2020 and he’s doing it while getting stonewalled on every decision by a Republican controlled Congress.
Honestly I think that pisses the Privs off more because it objectively proved that there’s options to get what’s needed done aside from setting everything on fire and starting over
All parts played a role. It influences negotiations significantly when there’s a party in the corner idly flicking a lighter. Because of the implication
that doesn’t come close to what the workers are owed, it wasn’t the biden administration’s place to insert itself im negotiations that NEEDED to result in a strike, for the good of the whole fucking country…
no, he sold out the rail workers and all they got was a fraction of the demands they they need met.
it wasn’t the biden administration’s place to insert itself im negotiations that NEEDED to result in a strike,
It is literally a responsibility of Congress to manage, by law. Biden helping is just him doing people a solid. Congress made the choice and you can’t starve cities.
no, he sold out the rail workers and all they got was a fraction of the demands they they need met.
What a stupid take. You’re saying that a real person that is actually doing fairly well in comparison to his opposition- is worse than an imaginary one?
No, I’m not saying that at all. That’s not how hypotheticals work. If their hypothesis is that a better democratic candidate exists, then that candidate must be a better candidate than Biden. I do agree that your idea of an imaginary candidate is, indeed, stupid.
Criticalness of Israel is not hatred of Jews. Any attack on someone based on their nationality should be a hate crime (including illegal immigrants at the USA Southern border). Walking past a protest and being offended by their message isn’t being attacked. Israel is way over the line and has historically been looking for reasons to absorb the Gaza strip into their control.
Did you read the article? First paragraph: " In Los Angeles, a man screaming “kill Jews” attempts to break into a family’s home. In London, girls in a playground are told they are “stinking Jews” and should stay off the slide. In China, posts likening Jews to parasites, vampires or snakes proliferate on social media, attracting thousands of “likes”. "
This is not Jewish people being offended about anti-Israeli protests. This is Jewish people being the targets of blatant, direct antisemitism because they simply exist as Jews.
They cite the airport in Russia. Those people were explicitly carrying Palestinian flags and targeting the fleeing colonists, people who actively were on the side of the regime in Israel.
I’d like to see the posts. And in fairness I’ve seen a lot of Nazi shit pop up on posts so anecdotally I believe anti semitism is increasing.
However, I despise the Israeli government and I’ve been called all sorts of shit for it. So I’m sceptical.
No, that is not correct. I genuinely believe there is an increase in anti semitism. I have seen it myself.
I am also disgusted at how irresponsibly people have been using that term. Representatives of the Israeli government get on cable news networks and any criticism of the genocide is met with claims of anti semitism. There are many people who are Nazis, not just garden variety fascists, but actually want to murder all Jewish people. Diminishing the weight and meaning of the term is encouraging these shits and it’s going to be a real problem.
I want to elaborate on the Russian airport. Those Jewish people left that community to join the apartheid in Palestine, willingly. They participated in it, willingly. Given compulsory military service, some on that plane took part in the violence (Don’t look into how many sexual abusers use birthright citizenship to evade justice or how they might be evading conscription into the Russian military). They were wealthy enough to get on an airplane and leave as their country began a violent oppression using the military. There are many reasons to be angry and violent towards the settlers that are not the fact that they are Jewish. People can be angry with them just based on the actions they have taken. Mossad very famously tracked and murked perpetrators of the genocide when they fled justice, were those anti-German hate crimes? Also, the footage I saw was people wanting to confront the people on the plane and the police fucking them up, is that a hate crime?
I get that’s a spicy take for many people. There has been, for decades, bleating from the Israeli government about anti semitism. And they feed that through “reputable news sources” like Reuters. As for why I don’t trust them, see Shireen Abu Akleh’s murder and the reporting that followed.
I know what narrative they want. So I want evidence when they make these claims.
I hear you. Not controversial at all and I pretty much agree where I’m informed. I think this is my issue… there are a million posts about Palestinian genocide where your comments are well suited. This is the rare post about civilians on the other side, millions that aren’t even in the region. That makes this the inappropriate place for your arguments. If you’re not sharing the sentiment on this post to diminish the point of the article, why are you sharing here? FYI for edification, that’s a dog whistle. It may not be your intent, but by pulling the convo away from the victims, there’s inherent implication that the victims don’t matter.
But I disagree that this isn’t the appropriate post for this discussion. A few weeks ago there was a Jewish synagogue leader murdered which made national news (Samantha Woll). She sounds like she was a beautiful soul and her death is a tragedy. Apparently, it was not a hate crime but standard levels of violence in American society.
I know why the story was national news. It serves a narrative. That narrative is dangerous. I think that narrative is going to lead us to a very dark place. I think this article is part of that narrative.
I did not read the article, nor do I have time, temperament, brain space, or blood pressure to read a percentage point of the articles that have come out about this war, or the other fucking war, or probably ww3 when it begins. My statements were a generality that I felt comfortable expressing in an aggregating website, I may have chosen the incorrect thread to put them out into, but this is where they were dumped to. Apologies for being overwhelmed at the amount of propaganda being pushed from all sides. I would ask you to allow me to exist in my gray middle area of “everyone should chill the fuck down”. Glory to Ukraine, peace in the middle east.
Israel voluntarily got out of Gaza, it would be suicide to go back, both temporarily (as is done now) and of course permanently.
The amount of money spilled from all over the world into Gaza could have made it a beautiful paradise, or a second Tel Aviv.
People there are refugees because hamas is happy with them being refugees.
Israels government are a bunch of criminals, but not for anything to do with Gaza. It’s an impossible conflict in which the only winners are the extremists on both sides who use it to show the world how there is no other way than force. Hamas justifies hiding under hospitals by saying that’s the only way to defend themselves, the corrupt, incompetent, extremist, Israeli government now want to blame the 2006 government for leaving Gaza and by that bringing this assault upon them.
Oh yes, the paradise open air prison created by Israel, which they now try to “re-build” to create a moon-style amusement park.
And while I don’t hate Jews or any other race, I find it strange that no one here is talking about the elephant in the room. That the recent surge in hate crime is directly linked with the war in Gaza, and that people are tired of seeing Israel’s government overstepping their limits once again and trying to level up the whole of Gaza by carpet bombing it, without any consideration of human life.
Have you ever thought that if Israel has found a peaceful solution of the Gaza/Hamas problem there would be a hate crime surge?
And what about the hate crime against the Palestinians in the West Bank, which is documented, unprovoked and happening with the silent endorsement of the IDF? I am sorry but I find it a bit cynical to say the least.
Jewish people worldwide are not responsible for the behavior of the Israeli government. Targeting random Jewish people in other countries for the actions of the IDF is antisemitism.
I have never said that, but targeting random Palestinians who don’t have anything to do with the events from the 7th of October also is not okay but I don’t see you condemning them?
My point only is that I am showing you how people from different parts of the world aren’t so different after all. They are all irrationally generalising people and holding them accountable for the wrongdoings of other people from the same ethnicity.
And my point is this surge of hatred is fuelled by a war offensive which a lot of people find too extreme and disproportionate in its nature bordering ethnic cleansing.
So I don’t think you, me or anyone in the world could change the human prejudices and their irrational tendencies of generalising people so the only other solution of the problem is the Israelian government to start treating its minorities respectfully, but I don’t see this happening either.
This article isn’t about Israel or Israelis or the war is Israel. This article is about Jews in other parts of the world being attacked for being Jewish. Damn, people just can’t talk about Jews without derailing the conversation.
Answer: You don’t. Not in 24 hours and especially not when the people in charge don’t want the civilians to leave either. This will be used by Israel as a thin justification that whatever they do next did not hit civilians because they asked them to evacuate (the 24h hours part of this ultimatum will be dropped under the table, never to be mentioned again).
Lets assume half of those 1.1 M find shelter in Gaza but outside Gaza city, (I think this is generous, as it will mean ~2 people living there usually for each person seeking shelter, as 2 M people live in the entire Gaza region). This leaves 550 k people to exit through the three border crossings. This leaves each person an average time of less than half a second per parallel processing capacity of the crossings to cross the border. Note that all three of these crossings are closed if I’m not mistaken.
You know, through the border crossings that are all closed. They’re just announcing this to claim that they gave people ample warning to leave when inevitably scores of Palestinians end up bombed.
Not to mention all the old, sick and disabled, or simply injured, are guaranteed shitload of suffering since the apartheid genocider state cut off electricity and water, so this includes to the hospitals.
You can’t. Isreal knows this. But by saying “We told them to evacuate” they’ve now provided themselves sufficient cover for everything that happens after. When civilians get slaughtered on mass they’ll just keep repeating “They were told evacuate”.
And that’s probably the figures China allows the international community to know. If the reports on that are anything like their emissions reports, it’s not even worth the time it took to generate them.
So true. In China, all the nuclear reactors are as radioactive as the elephant’s foot. They say solar is expanding really quickly, but actually it’s all a lie. Did you know under the Xi regime, absolute poverty has increased tenfold? It’s very sad. China lies about Japan’s nuclear safety for political reasons, so everything they say is wrong and actually my own dreams about them are reality.
good on you schooling these idiots for thinking china would misrepresent their emission stats, just because they have previously misrepresented their emission stats
China are the ultimate projectionists with this stuff. No transparency for themselves, and very quick to scream blue bloody murder about everyone else.
Take 20 seconds to read through the post or his history. He isn’t participating in the discussion, and half of his comments are about reddit or LaMe rEdDiT jOkeS
Louie’s apparently a world-class windsock. He’s now sheparding environmental causes through the Postal department which is set to revamp their truck fleet.
“There is international pressure and it’s growing, but particularly when the international pressure rises, we must close ranks, we need to stand together against the attempts to stop the war,” he said.
Sorry, why is Isreal not an isolated state at this point? If they won’t respond to international pressure, and indeed are intent on doubling down because of that international pressure, why even include them in international bodies?
Fun fact! If you befriend crows, they might bring you shiny things, but more importantly, descendants of the crows that you befriend will remember you and ALSO be your friend! Yay corvids, smart birdies!
For Crows this is also true. My Grandpa befriended a couple of Crows and even 40 years later their decendents visit us. We usually play with walnuts, they bring them to me, I open them for them and take some for myself. Smart birds, if I take more than half they get angry. But taking every second one - they are cool about that.
Wait, is that by percentage or raw numbers? I know there are a ton of Christian (especially Evangelical) Zionists, but Jewish people make up less than 3% of the U.S population, so if it’s by raw numbers that’s kinda a meaningless comparison. Like, there are less Jewish…pretty much everything in the U.S.
Fair enough. I spend a lot of time learning about right-wing extremists, so I guess I forget that it might not be common knowledge that Evangelicals support Israel because it ties into their apocalyptic death-cult prophecies.
We had a crazy Christian in our office. He was 100% all-in on the prophetic books like Ezekiel and Revelations. He would go on and on about how all the current events in the Middle East, Russia, and the Caucasus were prophesied back in biblical times, and that the Rapture would happen any time now. He literally told me that if he didn’t show up for work for a few days it was probably because he’d been Raptured up to heaven, and that’s how we will know that the end times are upon us. Our previous CEO was also of the crazy Christian persuasion. He wasn’t as loud as Rapture-boy, but definitely into Christian prophesy and numerology and applying it to current events with an eye on the end times. And I don’t even live in a bible belt. This is not as uncommon as you would think.
Give him “The Salvation War” from Stuart Slate to read.
That will shut him up.
Sell it to him as a story about the rupture and the fight of the unbelievers against their destiny.
He will then find out that the story doesn’t play out like the bible told… as Humanity curb-stomps hell and heaven into dust without blinking. And if he ever dares to speak the topic again, cite the book. I personally love the part when a random US marine puts a janitor on Gods throne because that guy is the only one knowing what he is doing. Though the pope excommunicating god for being not worthy also has its merit. Ah, Satan gets it too. He hides in a dirt hole from B-52 bombers.
Well, you gotta remember that in the Bible, the Jews (then Hebrews before becoming Israelites) are God’s chosen people and God aids them in destroying other nationalities all the time in the Old Testament. Hence the 12 Tribes and Israel coming about.
Christians will back the 12 Tribes of Israel because they’re the foundation of their religion. You can’t have Christianity without accepting God chose the Jews as his people and created the Kingdom of God and distributed it amongst Jacob’s 12 sons. If this is not true, nothing after it is either including Jesus as the Son of God, gentiles being accepted, and being judged be the 12 thrones in End Times.
So I think you will find most Christians support it while those that don’t simply don’t know their own religion too well.
So, yup! Pretty fuckin’ scary. But it’s not like it’s anything new. Lots of people have been killed in the name of religion before us and lots of people will once we’re gone.
Not really. The Catholic Church vilified Jews for over a thousand years. There’s also the new testament/old testament debate. Basically Jesus 86’d the old rules and that’s why Christians don’t have kosher stuff.
They controlled the Western Christian narrative until 1517. And if Jesus gave everyone a clean slate, then does Israel have a righteous claim to the holy land?
Spoiler, they don’t recognize Israel as an authority over Jerusalem.
Do you not understand how history works? That position between us and the alleged events means they got to edit, add, and delete all kinds of shit before we were ever born.
So when they control the European narrative from 300 CE to 1500 CE; that then informs what everyone after them thinks. Including the Protestants.
Even the Bible that people think of as the standard Bible was a project by King James because the Calvinists Bible wasn’t appropriately respectful of divine monarchy in his opinion. And having nothing much else to base it on at the time, it’s based on the Catholic Bible and a few previous attempts to convert the Catholic Bible to the English Church. Then Evangelists turned to the Scofield Bible in the 1900’s; which was just a well annotated King James Bible.
The evangelists who support Israel because they believe they’ll see Jesus again are still stuck on the Scofield Bible.
It’s not until you get to the NIV that people are trying to reach back to archeologically recovered Greek, Cyrillic, and Latin Bibles to create one not based on Catholic meddling for over a thousand years. And neither the Catholics or Conservative Evangelists are willing to do anything with the NIV. And congregations using the NIV still have to contend with a lifetime of using previous Bibles and dogma from other churches.
So do you understand why the Catholic Church is important to Christian ideology in the the US yet?
And what of any of that has to do with what I said and the history of the Jewish people in Israel?
I know you don’t mean this and what you’re saying is not incorrect, but in context you’re essentially saying Abrahamic religions are founded on the influences of the Christian church and modern day Americans. Perhaps rather than a stance of disagreement, you should have had one of raising additional points that occured much further along the historical timeline and how they may influence (pecifically) US Christians today.
Christians will back the 12 Tribes of Israel because they’re the foundation of their religion. You can’t have Christianity without accepting God chose the Jews as his people and created the Kingdom of God and distributed it amongst Jacob’s 12 sons. If this is not true, nothing after it is either including Jesus as the Son of God, gentiles being accepted, and being judged be the 12 thrones in End Times.
This is demonstrably wrong. If you want to argue that Christians are hypocrites then fine. But the mere existence of that story doesn’t create an obligation and most Christians don’t even connect that to modern Israel.
I’m arguing nothing. You are. Though, I don’t know what at since it’s entirely disassociated from anything I said and everything I’ve since said is just this sentence repeated. And yet here you are, still going…
Oh dude. I can confirm that for you. I grew up Roman Catholic. I know 80 percent of practicing Christians around the world just want to live and let live.
But the polling for American Christian evangelism is fucking scary. There was a deep dive into Jan 6 2020 and it turns out the evangelical community was key in planning the entire thing. They will tell you with a straight face that Sharia is bad and we should replace the Constitution with the Bible. There was an article yesterday where they proudly said women shouldn’t be able to vote.
Israel has a strong backing from the US. It is part of their Modus op since early 1900s which is to get a strong backer. Earlier, British was their patron and that’s how they get their foots in Palestine. Sometimes in 1930s or 40s (if I am not mistaken), they managed to get close support from the US, that became their new patron, and they reduced their dependence to the British at that point and even committed terror campaigned against them so that the British wouldn’t be in their way to gain Palestinian territories.
So, why would they care about international pressure/support when the US is with them. It’s not necessary, as the international community won’t be able to do much as long as some powerful body is always be behind them.
A couple of details you got wrong Israel didn’t exist until 1948, until then the area was the Brit Mandate over Palestine.
After WW1 the UK was granted control of the area from the former Ottoman Syria by the league of nations in 1920, under what was called Mandatory Palestine.
Yes I got it wrong. Instead of Israel, It should have written Zionism, the foundation of Israel that we see today. Zionism continues through modern Israel, and Israel doesn’t exist under thin air.
Anyway, I don’t see anything wrong with my statements of British and US backing. They reduced their reliance on the British after WW2.
Sure, they might “win” in terms of military and/or stealing land. But as long as they keep oppressing, stealing and murdering - there will be people fighting against it.
Even if there’s no Palestinian left on Palestinian ground. There will be people from different countries fighting back. One way or another.
“If peaceful revolution is not possible, violent revolution is inevitable”.
This whole thing seems to be a never-ending cycle which makes me immensely sad. For both, the Palestinian people and the normal civilians of Israel.
From what I have read and heard, Israel haven’t seen any actual peace ever since they made the state. I think, they’ve been on ‘high alert for attacks’ ever since being made. Correct me if I’m wrong though.
Peace can happen but the Israelis need to remove Netanyahu and elect somebody who actually wants a two state solution. After that, there’s a whole lot of diplomacy from both sides needed, free Palestinian elections, stolen land being returned, removal of blockades and control of infrastructure, and so on.
It’s not impossible, just really, really difficult. Especially with leadership on both sides not being especially interested in peace. That’s why Bibi needs to be slung out of office ASAP. Nothing good will happen while that monster has power.
You're right in general, but Bibi is a symptom, not a cause. The Israeli public has always been pro-genocide, and they're shifting to, not away, from the right. We need to recognize that a solution is only possible if the international community forces Israel to compromise.
They need to decide if the next asshole strongman who promises to keep them safe is worth their vote, because the current one has completely failed them.
It’s literally in their fucking charter… Do you read?
NOT that Israel is any different, they don’t plan on stopping until they have taken all that land… And probably finished the genocide their currently committing…
That’s just the price of being an invader nation. By definition, Israel can never know peace, only armistices between further acts of war. Unless they manage to genocide Palestinians world wide, they will always face attacks on their invader population/infrastructure/society. It’s a feature of colonization. Netanyahu knows this, but is trying to maintain his position by bringing home an unattainable victory.
No shit. Western training and equipment is not fit for purpose. Acting as a colonial cop by bombing with impunity ≠ attacking the strongest defensive lines of the 21st century. All their wunderwaffe just gets blown up by mines or drones.
Cannot wait to see how well this comment ages. All the Hexabear stuff is just comedy gold in the long run. Thank you for spending your life force creating it.
Yeah, Ukraine is really going to retake those two oblasts and Crimea. It will all be worth all the hundreds of thousands of lives thrown into the meatgrinder instead of honoring two ceasefires or negotiating a new ceasefire when that happens.
Real Hitler in his bunker energy, except instead of Hitler youre a nazi in some other country not directly involved coping about how Germany can still win.
They’ve literally constantly offered offramps toward de-escalation. Two negotiated ceasefires were broken by ukrainian state backed militias in donbass before the war started.
But I’ve been told the Russian army is out of missiles and teetering on the brink of collapse again, now you’re saying they’re simultaneously a force capable of posing a realistic threat of invasion to…uh, the entire rest of the planet, apparently? thinkin-lenin
Cannot wait to see how well this comment ages. All the Hexabear stuff is just comedy gold in the long run. Thank you for spending your life force creating it.
Can’t imagine thinking commentary, wrong or right, about brutal trench warfare, could be comedy gold.
The people telling you Ukraine is winning are lying to you. They don’t believe it. Ukraine doesn’t have enough equipment or enough soldiers.
The Wests only hope is a Russian coup. They’ll force every Ukrainian they can to die to try and make this happen. You cheer this death march on from the sidelines.
If you actually give a shit, go fight for Ukraine. If you don’t have the courage to die with them, then you have no right to advocate for continuing this war.
Lmao 4 months in and this comment already didn’t age very well, with even outlets like NYT starting to report the truth about Ukraine’s offensives going terribly.
Also, I wouldn’t call thousands of people dying for meaningless western imperialism/NATO expansion “comedy gold”
Then she chanted, "When people are occupied, resistance is justified" which in context is clearly in defense of October 7th, despite her denial.
Let's remember that the purpose of this protest was to stop Israel from defending themselves against their explicitly genocidal attackers via political pressure. Stopping Israel before they depose Hamas keeps Hamas in power.
Although she absolutely has the right to take controversial positions and peacefully protest, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. There is no right to anonymity when publicly protesting.
Israel has murdered at least 33,000 Palestinians, over 2/3 being civilians by their own count.
Collateral damage is not murder, nor are successful attacks against Hamas militants.
It's interesting you cite that figure as evidence of Israel's recklessness when it's actually an astonishing accomplishment that they got the civilian casualty ratio so low, especially considering Hamas hides among civilians in densely populated areas. The commonly cited average in modern war is ~90% civilian casualties. This seems to be evidence that the great lengths they go to to reduce civilian casualties are paying off, not evidence they are being reckless when it comes to civilians. You'd never know it from the protesters, or comments like yours though.
Hamas has not surrendered nor have they been deposed. That's when attacks would stop being self-defense.
Are you honestly ignoring the statistical evidence I provided that clearly shows it is? Were this war being waged by any other nation in the world you could expect the civilian casualties to be much higher.
A google search for this 20-1 claim yields no results. Credible citation?
If they did far better than their maximum acceptable casualties, and better than the average casualties under such conditions, isn't that a good thing that should be celebrated?
Genocide, the crime, is a claim of intent and not casualty numbers. Israel says they intend to destroy Hamas, which is not a protected group under genocide statutes. Hamas says they intend to destroy Jews/Israel/Israelis, which are protected groups under genocide statutes. There is only one explicitly genocidal party in this conflict, and it's not Israel. I support them because I oppose the genocidal.
Fuck you.
Childish insults? It's sad you can't respectfully disagree and support your position like an adult.
I'm here in good faith, and I would appreciate the same without such jabs. And I will also block you because you clearly aren't.
Thanks. It's almost as if google doesn't show the same results to everyone, especially in different countries. I have read about their AI but did not recall its code name, nor do I recall that specific ratio. I'll read up.
It certainly doesn’t. Google (and most other search engines) modifies your search results based on account history (if you are logged in), fingerprinting of your browser, cookies (including 3rd party) as well as the general location of your IP address. The last part you can try out for yourself with a VPN -you’ll get different results for the same search query from different countries.
This is usually why I prefer direct links to source my statements.
Given my own experience and information, I find it a lot more appropriate to fight back against Hamas, the oppressive regime that instigated this war, hides among civilians to maximize casualties, and has refused to surrender to end the war, which they could do at any time. I believe they are the primary cause of all of this death and destruction and suffering, not Israel defending itself.
Would I feel the same way were I in their shoes? Hard to say.
You dodged the question. When the IDF is attacking and murdering Palestinians, do those Palestinians have a right to take up arms and fight back? It’s a simple yes or no question.
Some questions cannot be fairly answered with a simple yes or no, like, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
There's a lot of bias packed into your question. If the IDF is in fact MURDERING, as in, illegally killing people, yes they do. However, if the IDF is acting within the law they absolutely do not. Either way, I'd say it's probably a bad move to do so and likely to get one shot.
I'm talking about right now. For example, for the people in Rafah. Do the Palestinians in Rafah have the right to fight back against the IDF that is shelling them and attacking their homes with tanks?
Then they are lying. I encourage you to watch the Oct 7 attack footage, (Content warning: violence, cruelty, death,) if you have the stomach for it, which clearly disproves any such claims. This is not collateral damage. They target civilians. Full stop.
Please do explain how murdering thousands of children is self-defense against Hamas. Were they strapping suicide vests to the babies and letting them crawl over to IDF troops?
Can only be described as psychopathic response disguised as intellectual arguments. There aren’t enough dead babies, women and children that will move this person so long as they’re Palestinian.
I really hate how many people on this site really push to equate what amounts to ethnic cleansing as dEFeNdIng ThEmSeLvEs. Like the thousands upon thousands of women and children they murdered were all fucking Hamas.
People often bring this up without noting that such a ratio would not be unusual in urban warfare against a well-prepared enemy even when the attacking army is doing what it reasonably can to reduce civilian casualties. Compare it to Mariupol, an example of what happens of the attacking army is unconcerned about civilian casualties: 25/26 of Ukrainians killed were civilians according to Ukrainian estimates. (8/9 were civilians if we use the Ukrainian numbers for how many of their soldiers were killed but the more conservative Human Rights Watch numbers for civilian deaths.)
If you trust the casualty numbers that the UN Is using, then they imply approximately 3.7 civilians killed for every combatant (with the assumptions that children make up half the population and that children are never combatants). I don’t trust those numbers but I admit that if I did, I would think they didn’t look good for Israel. I suppose we’ll have a better idea of what the truth is years from now when historians reach a consensus, but until then I’m going to reluctantly trust Biden’s judgement because the US government probably has secret information unavailable to the public. (Biden is biased by his need to be re-elected, but I don’t get reports from the CIA so that’s the best I can do.)
As for justification: Israel should make reasonable efforts to minimize civilian casualties while accomplishing its legitimate military objectives, but Israel should not sacrifice its ability to accomplish those objectives in order to protect civilians. In other words, Hamas doesn’t get to hold Palestinian civilians as hostages against Israel. If they try, then they are to blame for the resulting civilian casualties. The alternative is simply unworkable in practice, because the ability of Hamas to put Palestinian civilians at risk is almost total.
What is the maximum number of children that it acceptable for Israel to kill in order to accomplish its objectives? Is there no ceiling? Any number of children is acceptable as long as Hamas is wiped out?
If you present me with a trolley problem in which the only way to destroy Hamas also kills a million children, I won’t know what the right answer is. I suppose it would depend on what would happen to Israel if Hamas wasn’t destroyed.
However, the moral calculus for nations is not the same as it is for individuals. The standard established the last time the Western world fought a war it took seriously does seem to be “as many as it takes” and I suspect that this would still be the standard if such a war happened again. (All those nuclear missiles we have ready aren’t precise weapons…) In that context, demanding that Israel should show restraint that other countries haven’t and wouldn’t seems like hypocrisy.
It’s easy to act self-righteous when that has no consequences, but in practice most people on this planet live in countries (including democratic countries) that probably would actually kill the children in an analogous scenario.
Okay? But this was about you, not the governments that run those countries. You said you wouldn’t know what the right answer is.
The right answer is obviously don’t kill a million children and the fact that you don’t realize that it’s obvious is highly disturbing to say the least.
Let’s remember that the purpose of this protest was to stop Israel from defending themselves against their explicitly genocidal attackers via political pressure.
Israel is well past the stage where it defends itself against the attack. They could very well stop their operations right this moment and no further harm would come to them for the foreseeable future. What they are doing now is a deliberate attack to cleanse Gaza of everything and everyone they consider anti-Israeli.
Stopping Israel before they depose Hamas keeps Hamas in power.
How long ago has the West pulled out of Afghanistan? Apparently it’s long enough that people have forgotten what an utter failure the whole thing was and why. One doesn’t create a lasting peace by steamrolling a place and shoot a bunch of people. Instead Israel is breeding the next generation of Hamas terrorist right now.
Israel is well past the stage where it defends itself against the attack. They could very well stop their operations right this moment and no further harm would come to them for the foreseeable future. What they are doing now is a deliberate attack to cleanse Gaza of everything and everyone they consider anti-Israeli.
On what basis do you make this claim? I read credible citations.
Hamas has stated that they intend to do Oct 7 attacks over and over again. Stopping now while they are still in power and still have significant military assets just gives them a chance to rebuild, regroup, and carry out their stated genocidal intentions. Perhaps not tomorrow, but eventually.
Israel has cleared most of the surface of Gaza, once they clear Rafah, the last place that has not been purged of Hamas, I suspect that will be the end of this campaign. Stopping them before they completely excise this tumor ensures metastasis.
How long ago has the West pulled out of Afghanistan? Apparently it’s long enough that people have forgotten what an utter failure the whole thing was and why. One doesn’t create a lasting peace by steamrolling a place and shoot a bunch of people. Instead Israel is breeding the next generation of Hamas terrorist right now.
Afghanistan isn't really comparable nor are other western military adventurism defeats. Israel can't leave and go somewhere else, this is a battle for safety in their home country. It is existential. As such, I highly doubt Israel will completely withdraw like they did in 2005, which arguably directly led to Oct 7. Gaza will probably be occupied until it stops choosing violence.
I'm sure animosity will remain, but letting Hamas take over again and indoctrinate children to make another generation of intifada supporters will breed the next generation of Hamas fighters far more surely than Israel successfully defending itself will. For them, this is about safety, and safety is non-negotiable.
Sadly, there are no magical munitions that don't cause collateral damage, nor is Israel infallible. They still have a right to self-defense and to eliminate the threat against them.
How exactly are they defending themselves by bombing areas full of children?
If your answer is “Hamas is there,” well they were somehow able to raid a hospital without killing everyone inside it and still get a whole bunch of Hamas people, so maybe they should do that instead of dropping bombs on children.
If your answer is “Hamas is there,” well they were somehow able to raid a hospital without killing everyone inside it and still get a whole bunch of Hamas people, so maybe they should do that instead of dropping bombs on children.
As you acknowledge, they are targeting Hamas, who often attacks them while hiding in areas full of children. Going in without air support into a well prepared guerilla fighter's den is likely to cause a lot of casualties. Even though that is acceptable every now and then like in the hospital that does not imply that's a viable strategy for all of Gaza.
Hamas counts on this "think of the children!" and the bad PR it causes, that's why they do this. They also want Israel's hands to be bound so they can do Oct 7 over and over again.
The right move is to minimize civilian casualties but not stop until the job is done, and that's exactly what I believe Israel is doing.
According to a New York Times report, "Hamas has long been accused of using civilians as human shields and positioning underground bunkers, weapon depots and rocket launchers under or near schools, mosques and hospitals."[63]
DW military analyst Frank Ledwidge has said that "it's been described... as 'common knowledge' that many of the headquarters [of Hamas] are located under hospitals... [with] entries and exits in places like mosques or schools... [or even] UN facilities... that's why we've seen... so many non-combatant casualties so far".[64]
John Spencer has said that "[Hamas has] built many of their tunnel entrances and exits and passageway underneath protected sites like hospitals, schools, mosques, because it restricts the use of force that the IDF can take without going through the... laws of war calculation.[65]
According to Daphne Richemond-Barak, associate professor of counter-terrorism at Reichman University and author of the 2017 book Underground Warfare, Hamas militants operate under Al-Shifa Hospital gain "the highest level of protection available under the laws of war", as well as a "unique opportunity to operate far from surveillance drones, GPS, and other intelligence-gathering technology". She added that "in Gaza, tunnels are dug in civilian homes, pass under entire neighbourhoods, and lead into populated areas inside Israel... [which] enables Hamas to conceal entry and exit points, and facilitates undetected movement and activity."[66]
Avi Issacharoff has said that Hamas militants are "under the houses and neighborhoods of Gaza City, hoping that Israel won't attack them because they're hiding underneath human shields, and that if Israel will attack those neighborhoods, it'll kill many civilians, and the whole world is going to accuse Israel for war crimes". "The sad thing about all this", Issacharoff said, "is [that] Hamas doesn't care about their own people" and aims "not only to kill Israelis but for as many Palestinian civilians [casualties as well]".[67]
It's almost like starting a war when most of your population is children, then hiding among civilians and under schools endangers them. But I guess that's Israel's fault. Why can't they just send in soldiers without air support? They make easier targets that way.
If you’re going to claim that Israel is killing children because Hamas is hiding in schools and there aren’t schools, that’s a really silly claim.
And if there were schools, you’re claiming that Israel needs to bomb schools filled with children in self-defense. I don’t know that you’re going to find too many people sympathetic to that argument.
I sincerely hope you aren’t a parent if you feel children are so disposable.
Also, if you have to kill children in the name of self-defense, maybe you don’t have anything worth defending.
I'm saying using such despicable tactics is not a free genocide without reprisal card, nor should it confer a tactical advantage as that just means more of this in the future.
Collateral damage is not murder. I feel like a parrot having to refute all these same inaccurate characterizations over and over again. Calling it murder doesn't make it so.
Good thing you're not in charge of any defense forces. If your opponents strapped their own children to tanks I suppose you'd just let them roll in and take over.
If your opponents strapped their own children to tanks I suppose you’d just let them roll in and take over.
You know, I was going to answer the rest substantively, but this is the most ludicrous thing I’ve heard in quite some time. You are not here in good faith.
It’s not a genocide because of collateral damage. It’s a genocide because they used wholly inappropriate 2000 lbs bombs on civilian targets, used starvation as a tactic, refused to let meaningful amounts of humanitarian aid in, bombed schools and hospitals, and used genocidal language that demonstrates intent.
Go ahead and defend Itamar Ben-Gvir if you want but he’s a Kahanist. Go ahead and defend Netanyahu but he’s the one who is a disgrace to Judaism and arguably the worst leader of a major power in my lifetime. War crimes have happened. Mass graves exist and torture prisons exist. Genocide requires intent and I’d argue there’s been dozens of statements by members of Israel’s cabinet that constitute a very strong case.
I am neither defending Ben-Gvir nor Netanyahu, they are both assholes and should be removed from power. What I'm defending is Israel's right to self-defense. (I'm not your strawman, stick to things I actually wrote, please.)
The alternative to using bombs is sending in troops without air support to a well-prepared guerilla den, suggesting Israel should sacrifice its own to protect civilians of a hostile nation, 72% of whom support the genocidal regime who attacked them.
The pro-pali crowd certainly likes to make this sound like they are starving out Gaza in a medieval siege but that isn't reality.
Said schools and hospitals were used as military assets by Hamas, making them into legal targets.
I read the statements SA submitted to the IJC, the most egregious quotes were from people who are not involved with running the IDF and waging this war (like Judeofascist Ben-Gvir and Amichai Eliyahu) and I do not believe they represent Israel as a whole, and as such they do not meet the standards for genocide. In fact Amichai got reprimanded for his statements. Many of the other quotes were taken out of context. (I did a deep dive on every quote cited a while back, which I would be happy to post here if you're interested.)
If torture prisons exist that's a good reason to prosecute Ben-Gvir of war crimes if such orders came from on high, and also any guards who break the law without CO approval. If war crimes have happened I approve of prosecuting everyone responsible. However, I see a lot of people accusing Israel of war crimes inappropriately.
At the very least, we can agree that this is not a normal war and both Hamas and Israeli actions require an investigation. Hamas, being a terrorist group and not a state actor, should be treated as a terrorist group. They don’t represent Palestine at the UN and no one in their right mind recognizes them as anything other than a stain upon the world.
Israel (and Fatah) have a different level of responsibility. I understand that October 7th was despicable. I hope Hamas disappears. But Israel, if it wants to be in the community of nations, has to conduct war in accordance with the laws of war. And I don’t think they have.
I would obviously say the same about the Rohingya genocide and the unfolding one in Darfur. Never again means never again. I’ve been to the genocide museum in DC and concentration camps in Europe but also the Rwandan genocide memorial and others. I think what we’re seeing is a genocide. Nothing is clear in the fog of war so it won’t be clear today or tomorrow but the UN is not wrong for investigating.
Israel crossed the line from self defense into genocide when they started ruthlessly executing innocent civilians and aid workers. You cannot justify their bullshit.
Do you want to discuss the over 500 incitements of genocide? When it comes to intent, Israel’s intent has been documented more than most
Since the commencement of our investigative efforts on October 7th, 2023, Law for Palestine has meticulously amassed a compelling body of evidence exposing the proliferation of incitement to violence and genocidal intent perpetrated by Israeli officials and public figures, against Palestinians. Our documentation encompasses over 500 incitements of violence and genocidal incitement, appearing in the forms of social media posts, television interviews, and official statements from Israeli politicians, army personnel, journalists, and other influential personalities.
Hi and apologies for the late reply - /c/[email protected] moderator @jordanlund removed my comment and gave me a temporary ban for the comment you replied to citing that it was “Pro-Israel propaganda”.
First off, thank you for posting this link - and no, I’m not interested in discussing them. My point was that users should be held to a higher standard when posting as moderators than the rest of us.
I will however give a comment on the contents of the cited webpage. I read through the statements from decision makers (These seemed most relevant), and they did (in my personal view) not amount to intent. However, as law4palestine highlights:
The ultimate adjudication of this matter is contingent upon the determination of a competent court.
Personally, I want to see a full investigation by the ICJ conducted, and if they do end up with an indictment, those responsible brought to justice.
I don’t understand how someone can read 22 incitements to genocide by the Minister of Defense, Prime Minister, and President of Israel on top of the hundreds of other incitements by public officials, Knesset members, military personnel, and law enforcement; only to conclude that it does not amount to intent. That doesn’t make sense to me. That’s on top of the ongoing military operations that fit the description of genocide and go against the ICJs orders to prevent a plausible genocide.
Intent is a critical part of the ICJ case, the court case would not be ongoing if the evidence was not plentiful and credible. The people of Gaza cannot wait years for a verdict.
I agree with your last paragraph, for the war crimes Hamas has committed too, after an end to the apartheid.
Do Palestinians have a right to self defense or just Israelis? Because there’s a whole lot of settler attacks in the West Bank and mass graves full of kids in Gaza.
I’m not defending Hamas, who are just as shitty as the settler parties but you might logically expect violent resistance if you put a people under your boot for decades.
“In international law, the right to resist is closely related to the principle of self-determination. It is widely recognized that a right to self-determination arises in situations of colonial domination, foreign occupation, and racist regimes that deny a segment of the population political participation.”
Capitalism has a lot of problems, but the freedom given to a seller to set their prices to whatever they like and watch the buyer decide it is not a fair price and go buy from someone else is not one of them.
The problem with that is when a company like Microsoft has used and abused its position for such a long time that the only possible competition is another megacorp. No real choice there, only an illusion of choice.
I’m completely biases because I cannot find a si gle redeemable feature of SharePoint… Hence, anything that integrates with SharePoint is just worse by doing so
Seriously, having been hit by a fairly rounded Impreza at low speed that still did significant damage, I’m shivering at the thought of what these edges would do to soft tissue and bone in the same conditions. The pressure at the contact points would be dramatically higher.
Yeah cars should definitely not be colliding with people. The results are horrible. Welcome to civilization with cars, where our overall strategy for minimizing the death cars to do pedestrians is based on collision avoidance rather than making car-pedestrian collisions safe.
Making car-pedestrian collisions safe is a ridiculous idea failed to doom from the start. Cars are big and hard, people are small and squishy.
My quite large awd minivan that can tow 3500 lbs and fit a massive amount in the back has a hood that slopes down quickly to about a waist height. God forbid if I hit someone, they would clearly be scooped up onto the hood, which might sound bad but literally every single new pickup (with basically the same specs as my minivan on paper except with less capable AWD because of no weight in the back and a bed that doesn’t come with a cover like mine did) is basically designed to try to hit a pedestrian in the shoulders and head and smash them down under the vehicle. This isn’t a hypothetical safety thing, pedestrian fatalities are raising at an alarming rate because it has become cool for insecure men to drive around pickups that are optimized to kill a pedestrian in an accidental crash. Also, the rear cab seats of these pickups are extremely dangerous in a crash (there isnt any space to cushion collision) which is dark given that I always see losers driving around their whole family in these monstrosities treating it like a family vehicle.
I agree though that kicking cars out of places that pedestrians are in and valuing pedestrian use of public ways over car use especially in urban areas is ultimately the best solution.
reuters.com
Top