What would have been a proportional response? Is it a numbers game? lets do 2x? 5x? 10x?
In the gilad shalit deal Palestinians established the proportion of 1 Israeli to 1027 Palestinians.
So on Oct 7 - 1,195 were murdered, by your standards Israel should have killed 1,227,265 Palestinians.
First of all, the proportional response should be delivered directly to the source: Iran. There are lots of bad guys in Gaza, but there are lots of innocent people too. Indiscriminately killing everyone is not the solution.
You still didn't define what's the proportional response.
Come on armchair commander show us your battle plans for Iran. Do we nuke it? Do we destroy all the dams? Do we hit just the nuclear facilities? Or do we eliminate their oil industry? Maybe just all the military bases, oh we forgot all the subterrains rocket facilities, do you want to invade Iraq style?
If the IDF would have Indiscriminately killing people then the number would have been 10x, and you know it.
A) It's hard to argue that the war in Gaza was indiscriminate when the IDF achieved the highest combatant-to-civilian casualty ratio in the history of urban combat, despite Hamas hiding in tunnels underneath population centers.
B) When soldiers flood across your border from a neighboring polity by the thousands, it would be an abdication of sovereignty not to defend against that immediate threat, regardless of the enemy's funding sources.
->Israel nearly eradicating a population of 2 million people
if all 2m of Gaza population were dead this war would be over but I guess all that aid for 2m people for the remaining 100k is to just to fatten them up right?
Israel is meant to be a "safe" space for jews, and the Law of Return will allow you and your decedents to move to Israel when the anti-jewish takes power and you will not feel/be safe in your current location. Maybe you won't think it's so trivial then...
While it doesn't seems so today, that's the premise of the State of Israel after the Holocaust.
He may still be able to say he is Jewish or even deny that he is religious today the trend in the west is the same as in the 1930's. You see it in the UK, France, the US and even in Germany. It doesn't matter what these governments say today. They don't fight or even deny anti-semitism either from the radical right or the marxist and Islamo-left. The protests under the mask of anti-Israel are just these ideas peeking into the surface.
When his business gets boycotted, burned and stolen, when he won't be able to run for office or hold a government position, when his house gets marked and his kids won't be able to go to school the only safe place in that regard will be Israel.
I would just note here that Israel being a safe space after Holocaust is not in line with history. I am not denying that it had some aspects of being a safe space, but the project Israel started much before Holocaust, and Balfour declaration predates Holocaust by decades.
Again, I agree that there can be an argument that Holocaust was a culminating event of the antisemitism in Europe. But i never felt that the antisemitism in the west makes Israel a safe space, is not very congruent one when the both West and Israel touts a shared set of Western values. It is even more surprising since the current conservatives call Western values as Judeo Christian.
I would make it clear that people feeling being alienated even in presence of such values is understandable. But the events of establishing Israel, and the continued invasions of neighbouring countries, and the sheer atrocities committed in the process makes no sense to me. Not to say the constant attempts to portray people who have been living there as usurpers, harbouring Zionist Terrorists, are not the actions of some who seeks a safe space.
The Zionist idea was to create a state where Jews could make their own destiny, which in part is to have a place where every jew can come with the rising antisemitism and pogroms as they could no loner be a people without a state. The Holocaust was one of the catalyst that a safe place for jews must be established i.e. no one will protect us but us. A prime example is the expulsion of Jews ,pogroms being a 2nd class citizen in Arab countries.
It's not surprising at all, should the Jews in the west just go about their lives with classic Christen, revived Marxism and newly imported Islamic antisemitism? These western government do nothing to counter it beside saying they condemn that, which means nothing.
Continued Invasions of neighboring countries?? Your bias is showing, every action of Israel is in response to aggression and terrorism by Israel's neighbors. Don't want to get invaded and bombed to hell? Shouldn't have fired thousands of missiles, rape, behead, mutilate, kidnap, harbor terrorists, dung terror tunnels, blocked trade blew up buses, restaurants and coffee shops. These "neighbors" of Israel always like to cry that Israel is the aggressor but it's always reflection.
Times of Israel is the media of a different belligerent in this conflict, why on earth should I trust them to debunk AJ anymore than I should trust AJ to truthfully report on Israel?
The difference is that Times of Israel is privately owned, while Al Jazeera is operated by an authoritarian government. also the information I posted can be found in other places. However, if you think a government that promotes modern slavery is probably a good source for journalism, that's your choice to make.
However, Al Jazeera never corrected the story, just took it down, which is just as OP reported: "We can draw the line when they report proven false information and never apologize for reporting so."
> We can draw the line when they say one thing on English Al Jazeera and another on Arabic Al Jazeera.
The vast majority of media companies that own media in different languages are on Al Jazeera's side of the line then, including most companies that have social media channels in different languages.
The only one stirring up a regional war is Iran, arming terrorist groups around Israel as a proxy war. The fact they can act with impunity is a stain on the west just like the war in Ukraine that still rages on. This might not have been a bin laden level assassination but it was not that far and any other country that faces the same threat would do the same.
Israel has literally targeted Iranian territory. How is that better than arming Israel's opponents? And Israel is the country with not only a nuclear capability but also invented the "samson option", which is basically threatening the region to nuke everyone if they have to. Israel and Iran really deserve each other.
If you mean the "embassy" building it's not Iranian territory. They are not defined as such, it's false information from movies and did you forget the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina? They sure didn't have an issue then.
If you mean assassinations of nuclear scientists in Iran then sure you are correct but then what do you expect when Iran's leaders again and again say they are going to wipe Israel off the map?
"How is that better than arming Israel's opponents?" - Got me there buddy, how is it better than targeting military targets who fund and direct terror vs aiming blindly 100k rockets into population centers.. gee they are so equivalent
When all your neighbors wants to murder you and throw you to the sea you tend to be a bit overly defensive, why is it any different than the US/Russia/China nuclear arsenal as a deterrent?
The difference is that China or Russia or the US have a mutual destruction doctrine. Russia or the US won't nuke every country on earth that they can reach if they get nuked by China for example. According to that logic since Israel clearly wants to destroy Iran, it should be able to nuke Israel as a last act even if Israel didn't initiate a nuclear attack.
As to your first point, I'm talking about decades of Israeli operations, not just what happened recently. But I guess Israeli embassies are ok to attack now, since they aren't in Israeli territory.
You keep saying that they are just trying to not get wiped out, but they are the only people that are actively and openly wiping out another group. Like, multiple Israeli officials have stated they want to level Gaza to the ground. Is the Westbank colonization also just a way for poor Israelis to not get wiped by neighbors or?
They also killed more than 30 000 civilians in the past few months. So the narrative that they are just trying to not get pushed back to the sea doesn't work very well here. Especially coming from a colonizing state that is actively expanding in territory that isn't theirs the moment that said territory stopped armed combat against them.
Where did you come up with "Israel clearly wants to destroy Iran"? Did you forget that before the Iranian Islamic revolution they were best buddies? You might say that Israel wants to see the Iranian dictatorship fall (and that's only because of their action against Israel, Israel couldn't care less what they do in house to their own people) but it's a far cry from wiping Iran unlike Iran stance to kill all the jews in Israel (and beyond).
Iran would have bombed Israeli embassies if they could (not like they don't try), they don't need an excuses because they already did that to Israel AND the USA (or did you forget about that too).
"they are the only people that are actively and openly wiping out another group" - Sure, they cried genocide for 75 years about since then they more than doubled, worst genocide ever. Unlike the 500k dead Syrians or the 250k killed in Yemen and that's just in the last 10 years or all current African conflicts, but when its not Jews it's not interesting right?
I'm not here to support or defend the occupation but from a security stand point yes it was/is necessary if you look at the region/border geographically
from a military defensive stand point, you can just look at all the previous wars/clashes/terror attacks from that region pre 67. Reminder that the PLO (the good, "peaceful" terror group) was founded in 1964.
30k people, a number made up by and inflated by a terrorist run organization, very reliable[1] (they even admit its based on social media posts), in that case take into account the 10k dead combatants. 2:1 ration is one of the lowest if not the lowest in urban combat in recent memory just look what it took to wipe Isis in Mosul but I bet you didn't cry genocide then right?
There is always someone on each of N sides of these longstanding conflicts in the region saying "Y is really the problem (because I support X; all who support X know Y is the real problem)."
That foreign powers abuse that to their own advantage worse than even the local factions do is the true stain on humanity. Why support this?
I did something similar when I worked on an internal timeseries DB with optimization for long term and short term storage.
The EFS thing is a bit tricky. Once your credits are done it's super slow, so I bet they do provisioned but that's expensive.
The other thing was that multiple instances trying to reach the same EFS endpoint at the same time ,for the first time, will fail so you need to stagger it or retry and the docker mount plugin was a bit iffy.
This shouldn't be surprising at all.
Harvard and other American universities have taken "donations" from foreign countries for years to hire the "correct" professors to push agendas (and raise the next generation of leaders), just look at the amount money flowing from Qatar for example.
Why taking bribes from tech giants is any different?
it's just a way to wishy-washy other people opinions because they disagree with what they have to say. I personally don't like these kind of discussions in HN, most are personal opinions and rarely backed up by statistics or official sources.
