Did you read the article?

Yeah, it’s totally fucked. And there’s a weird part of me that is thinking this is “better”. Israel not bombing indiscriminately and instead using special forces for more precise measure to hit military targets is what people want in some weird way. I can’t tell if this is supposed to be viewed as still terrible or in some way an improvement in the way the war is being waged.

But in this scenario does China want America to eat the shit platter and broken glass?

I’m not mad. But the context around South Africa is interesting. The questions around the court really only being able to bring charges against recognized nations and not Palestine or Hamas is interesting. It’s important to put this ruling in the larger context of world events and politics. Also the context of Israel actually showing up unlike Russia is important. I don’t think the tone of the article is about being sour about the result, but the need for consistency.

Given the dreadful toll of civilian deaths in Gaza, reportedly now topping 25,000, Israel should answer questions about its conduct. Every member of the United Nations’ 1948 Genocide Convention has an obligation to raise concerns if they have evidence that a group of people is at risk of genocide. Given previous catastrophic failures to prevent genocide—in Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur—more referrals to the court could be good news for the protection of civilians at risk. And unlike Russia, against which Ukraine made a complaint to the court in February 2022, Israel has indicated that it takes the charges seriously, attending the court to dispute the accusation.

What does this gesture do to I pact the means of production and labor to push towards a state of communism?

I’m having trouble connecting this paragraph about US provided intelligence for targets:

“They’re probably targeting people, targeting officers,” Lawrence Cline, who served as an intelligence engagement officer in Iraq before retirement, told The Intercept. Targeting intelligence refers to the identification and characterization of enemy activities including missile and artillery launches, location of leadership and command and control centers, and key facilities. “What I can see is we’ve got a lot of global assets in terms of satellites and the like and the Israelis have a lot in terms of more localized radar coverage.”

With this paragraph about how Israel selects targets:

The Israeli military intentionally strikes Palestinian civilian infrastructure, known as “power targets,” in order to “create a shock,” according to an investigation by the Israeli news website +972 Magazine. Targets are generated using an artificial intelligence system known as “Habsora,” Hebrew for “gospel.”

This makes it sound like US engagement is trying to identify military targets that follow some criteria of what a military target is. But Israel is doing their own thing using AI?

Yup. I think there’s a difference between the factual claim of whether Hamas has operations on the hospital grounds vs the justification for the type of military action taken against the hospital. I think it is possible to accept there is truth to the Hamas operations center being located there and still condemn the military tactics used against the hospital due to civilian casualties and harm it caused. Unfortunately those 2 things seem to be conflates that acknowledgement of Hamas being there is implicitly condoning Israel’s actions.

While the spy agencies provided no visual evidence, a U.S. official said they were confident in their assessment because it was based on information collected by Israel and America’s own intelligence, gathered independently.

Can’t conscription help build a more anti war sentiment? It’s easy to send young people to war when it’s the poor and the elites and middle class call the shots. But if the military has more equal class representation, maybe leaders in a democratic society would behave differently.

You should check out this piece: https://theintercept.com/2023/12/24/feminism-sexual-violence-hamas-israel/

It is possible to acknowledge the sexual violence and mutilation carried out by Hamas, condemn those that use the fact as propaganda to legitimize further violent, and still acknowledge the suffering of Palestinians and support a free Palestine.

I think the “where” does matter as certain publications have standards and editorial review for their publications for journalistic integrity. Major news outlets like The Guardian, the NY Times, etc. should have some assumption of higher merit than say Business Insider or The Hill (not necessarily bad sources, but they lack rigor and often rely on other news orgs reporting as a source).

I also think we should do more to limit articles that use those sources as their primary source. I hate articles from site Y saying site X is reporting blah blah. Usually that is because site Y doesn’t have a paywall, but this community should prioritize primary sources.

Relying on video footage, photographs, GPS data from mobile phones and interviews with more than 150 people, including witnesses, medical personnel, soldiers and rape counselors, The Times identified at least seven locations where Israeli women and girls appear to have been sexually assaulted or mutilated.

Idk. I will need to look for the news articles, but I thought I saw some US military officials (maybe off the record) stating that Israel’s calculus for collateral or proportional damage are pretty reckless (to say the least). Also the civilian counts… How liberally are they counting all males aged 16 or 18 and older as military combatants? And choice of weaponry or bombs just unjustifiable for the targets they select?

I think the NY Times also did a good job confirming Israel was dropping bombs in areas they told civilians to move to which is also a problem.

I think Israel has justification and obligation to go to war with Hamas after Oct 7h, but their bloodlust is becoming unconscionable. They need a lot more discipline in their approach. That Israeli bloodlust and hamas use of civilians as human shields is fucked.

They dont, but the web interface allows you to more easily generate an archive link and paste it in the text of the post. I was lazy. Also, I worry about print so want the first click to be to the site to help generate traffic for the source. And in case there are corrections to articles, I don’t know if the archive refreshes to capture that.

Part of the excuse was improper choice of bomb for a densely populated area that would cause disproportionate damage. So it’s kind of an admission of fault, but kind of saying there was some justification that there was a valid target still. But with such disregard for civilian life, even if there is a valid target it is messed up. Proportionality rules and evaluations don’t seem to matter to Israel.

Yeah, it’s easy on web. A bit of a pain via app. Thanks for taking the initiative to make the link though!

Is there an easy way to do that via sync app?

I don’t think we are in disagreement. Just misunderstanding what specifically I was responding to. Also, my account or description isn’t a justification for this type of belief. But the reality is some people do become more religious in times of struggle. Not sure why I’m being downvoted for that.

I’m trivializing the what about ism, especially when the what about ism is incredibly vague.

There was also a comment “if any god at all.” I am very familiar with theodicy questioms and euthyphro questions. And it’s not a new concept that end times mentality or need for salvation in dire times actually can push some people to religion.