yeah, how dare israel strike the guys who ordered attacks on them, by air and by land (but they probably won’t, too much fallout and risk of starting a war they can’t finish)
In accordance to multiple UN resolutions and international law, as well as simple ethics, occupied people have a right to armed resistance. Occupiers and apartheid states do not.
One has to remember that in 1948, the UN was basically nothing but the League of Nations and some puppet states, which had to be bribed and threatened for the motion to pass.
Fine by me, 2state solution yesterday, do the occupied recognize Israel’s 67 borders?
PS: Or do you think israel is going to recognize Palestine only for Palestine to be an islamist spearhead right in the heart of Israel for Iran’s attacks? Don’t give the fascists in power in Israel more ammo to shame the pacifists.
So far the only ones who have blocked that continuously is Israel. I for one think that’s still a bad deal and would be satisfied with nothing else but a one state solution, but I understand how desperate the Palestinians are and wouldn’t fault them either way.
“Pacifism” serves no one but the oppressor. No one’s ever freed themselves without strength of actions.
I was talking about israeli pacifists, who are basically treated as a joke after Oct 7th and apparently by you too. Israel was on the brink of a civil war between the fascists and rule of law moderates before Oct 7th and this attack solidified the fascists in power for decades.
Israel was created by a UN resolution, simultaneously with Palestine and is a result of the Arabs and Jews as winners against the Ottoman empire in WW1 and the nazis in WW2. They both got land. Jews got half of Palestine. Arabs got everything else: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and half of Palestine. What was the problem here, exactly? Maybe the solution is to return everything to the Brits or the Ottomans. No more squabbling, lol.
Lehi split from the Irgun militant group in 1940 in order to continue fighting the Britishduring World War II. It initially sought an alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.[22] Believing that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis, proposing a Jewish state based on “nationalist and totalitarian principles, and linked to the German Reich by an alliance”.
Than there’s also the Haavara Agreement where they agreed to stop boycotting Nazi Germany so that they could get more people over to colonise/invade Palestine.
And as I’m sure you know many members of Lehi went on to have long lasting careers in Israeli politics, even being Netanyahus mentor and founding the Likud party he belongs to.
So the people who wanted to ally with the Nazis still run Israel today, crazy world.
The attack on October 7th certainly had a much much MUCH better uniform/civilian kill ratio (about 1:1) than what ever Israel does (probably in the order or 1:100 if we’re being EXTREMELY generous).
MK killed fewer than a hundred people and had killed nobody before Mandela was arrested. Comparing MK to Hamas is pretty ridiculous considering Hamas has intentionally gone after civilians.
But hey, if Hamas gets out there and loudly proclaims their adherence to non-violence like Mandela did then I’d be ecstatic.
If one of the guys who ordered the Oct 7th escalation was the only hope for peace in Gaza…I’m not sure there is any point in negotiating with hamas. Isn’t there any leader in Gaza outside hamas?
There have been atrocities for decades perpetuated by both Palestinians and Israelis. Some people that have done absolutely heinous things will need to be involved in the peace process for it to actually work considering those people are the ones perpetuating the cycle. Look at what happened with the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland and Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa (this one is far more one sided but still applicable).
The IRA was armed in part by Libya which was absolutely a hostile state in the UK’s eyes at the time. They almost killed Margaret Thatcher. They had many operatives in Great Britain, I don’t see how the Irish Sea significantly changes things considering there is a massive wall between Gaza and Israel that is easier to defend than thousands of miles of coastline.
I did not know that, but still, those weapons were not 20km away from London. This is not just fascists in Israel, even the moderates feel too threatened to oppose the fascist narrative.
I quoted the 20km distance as the distance between Palestine’s borders and major capitals in Israel, but yes, there were lots of bombings in Israel, but I guess they controlled that with the border walls and a police state…again…Ireland is easier to let go as a colony, not right on top of you.
Even if things never got as bloody as Palestine, everyone should still cherish the reasonableness in the Good Friday agreement.
They haven’t let go of Ireland as a colony though.
I absolutely do cherish the GFA and I see how a bunch of stubborn, violent men had to get together and painstakingly iron out an imperfect peace to achieve it. I want the same for Israel and Palestine.
Moderate?
The guy who lead Hamas when they threw Fatah officials off buildings and shot into crowds of their supporters?
That under him Hamas charter included this very moderate part
“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”
He wasn’t a moderate in any way, and it’s bizarre to see people referring to him in this way.
It’s all relative. The guy still sucks, but he was still a part of the wing of Hamas that is looking to negotiate.
Edit: also the Hamas charter was revised to remove that in 2017 when he took power as the chair of the Hamas political bureau. I’ll ask you this, do you honestly think his death will change anything? That another person won’t just step in his place and continue killing Israelis? That’s my point, this is a cycle that will just perpetuate. There are no actors in this with clean hands.
All the negotiations were approved by Sinwar in Gaza, who’s supposedly the most fanatic one.
His death weakens them, although it’s certainly not enough. But he’s also not the only one they got to.
Hamas is close to losing their grip on Gaza. It will benefit everyone if they become irrelevant.
I think what they mean is that as a leader, he does not really believe his own propaganda, so he can be pragmatic, but if you kill him, whoever succeeds him might be one of the guys who actually believed that fanatically. Or he really does believe that, given his history.
“how dare they”. Because targeted assassinations are murder. They are barbaric and in contradiction to the rule of law. And with the civilian “casualties” in Beirut and Tehran it would be appropriate to condemn them as acts of terror, because that is what they are.
At this stage, anything that happens in this war is a crime and murder (listen to yourself: if they are targetted in decapitation strikes, it’s a crime, if they are indiscriminate, it is even worse) so I’d rather they go after the leaders of hamas who organized the escalations than bomb Palestine any more.
PS: yet the bombing of Palestine is ongoing. More civilians among them journalists dead today…
While the Royal Canadian Navy began WW2 with only 13 ships, by the end of the war it had 1,140 surface ships listed as having been in service giving it the third largest navy in the world!
Reuters Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: reuters.com> Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: Very High
> Country: United Kingdom
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
Reuters Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: reuters.com> Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: Very High
> Country: United Kingdom
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
Reuters Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: reuters.com> Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: Very High
> Country: United Kingdom
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
I remember seeing a documentary years ago showing that all of the stuff the West was trying to stop cigarette companies from doing in terms of marketing to kids they were doing with no restrictions in Indonesia. Seven-year-olds were shown smoking. So I’m glad they’re working on this issue.
What’s better is to do more tangible effort to curb underage smoking and limit public places where you can smoke. In Indonesia basically you can smoke anywhere and the areas specified is the ones where you cannot smoke.
Most places doesn’t even enforce the limit as the kids usually can say they’re buying for their dads and the people working at the store isn’t paid enough to care. Elementary age kids are also bragging that they’ve been smoking too.
Fun fact: Decimation is originally a Roman practice. It’s a form of punishment where every tenth man in a group was executed by members of his cohort.
The bastard Jack Welch implemented this as a business practice with a sanitized name: rank your team, fire the worst 10%, even if the team did great.
Shareholders cheered at this practice. They bought shares in droves when businesses literally decimated themselves. Shareholders are mostly glorified gamblers with a boner for hardship. Making employees suffer is just dandy, as long as it can be sold as an improvement.
My point is that shareholders usually don’t know wtf they’re doing. This doesn’t surprise me.
Risks are normally outside the reasonable control of the company. For example, sales not hitting the target. They can’t just press a button and up goes the sales.
This was entirely within the company’s control. That risk shouldn’t ever be there at all. They could’ve avoided the entire situation if they chose not to ship the faulty software.
If you own shares of a company, you literally own part of that company. To be able to sell shares of your company, you have legal obligations. By putting your shareholders capital at risk by unsafe practices, you fail to deliver on your obligations and can be held liable. Shareholders of large companies are not exclusively greedy investors. Retirement funds can also be backed by capital that is bound in stocks. If your fund holds shares that lost value due to incompetence of the company executives, it is similarly your legal obligation to take legal action in the interest of the people who paid into your fund.
By suing themselves, they are losing out. Like, if you don’t like the leadership, then get rid of them, that’s why you have a board of directors. These lawsuits from shareholders is stupid.
CrowdStrike (CRWD.O), has been sued by shareholders who said the cybersecurity company defrauded them by concealing how its inadequate software testing could cause the July 19 global outage that crashed more than 8 million computers.
In a proposed class action filed on Tuesday night in the Austin, Texas federal court, shareholders said they learned that CrowdStrike's assurances about its technology were materially false and misleading when a flawed software update disrupted airlines, banks, hospitals and emergency lines around the world.
Basically, the company advertised itself as being one way to the shareholders, they bought in on that basis, and then it turned out they were misrepresenting themselves. Presumably they're suing the company and not the executives personally because that's where the money is.
Note that simply owning the shares doesn't mean that it's already "their money." If I buy a share in a company I can't walk up to it and demand that they give me a portion of the cash from the register. It's more complicated than that and lawsuits like this are part of that complexity.
Reuters Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: reuters.com> Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: Very High
> Country: United Kingdom
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
reuters.com
Hot