I know you’re citing the United Nations as an authority, and providing a link is definitely welcome, but the site you’re linking literally says
The number of people killed in Gaza has reached 5,087 according to latest reports from de facto authorities there
thereby acknowledging that even the UN is merely repeating the numbers that Hamas is giving them.
Could we maybe agree that blindly accepting whatever Hamas is saying as truth is not the best policy?
That’s just an ellipsis to avoid repeating the subject, even if just by using a pronoun, in a headline. It’s completely fine as far as grammar goes, but since we’re not living in the age of the telegraph any more, it arguably wouldn’t hurt if journalists ditched that antiquated format and made headlines more readable.
By Yemen against Israel? I would think so.
what cease fores will do …it’ll stop the creation of more terrorists. Maybe create a road map to peace.
There have been several ceasefires in place between Hamas and Israel in the last 17 years since Hamas seized power in Gaza, and arguably none of them stopped the creation of new terrorists.
And let’s be honest and truthful; as bad and awful as Hamas is, the oppression imposed created the environment for them to exist.
Hamas is a terrorist organization that oppresses and murderes Palestinians. The first thing they did when Israel deoccupied Gaza was to seize power from Fatah, murder Fatah members, and suspend elections.
They purposefully murdered Israeli civilians when they could have targeted military targets. They purposefully place terrorist installations next to civilian places like hospitals, places of worship, etc. in the Gaza strip.
There’s a lot of blame on Israel for propping up Hamas in a belief that they would be less violent than Fatah, but there’s also a point where you have to admit that people who decide that they want to commit terrorism have some agency of their own, and that not even terrorist act committed by Hamas can be squarely blamed on Israel.
Strong “you can’t let good food go to waste” in the post-war generation, including in my own family. It’s so ingrained even in the next generations that many of us will just “finish their plate” even though there’s no necessity there. Some of us are quite well off now, but attitudes around food haven’t changed. You have to finish your plate. You can’t let good food go to waste. People elsewhere are starving. People worked hard so you could have this food. You don’t know when you’ll be able to have a nice meal like this again.
Like you, I realized the difference when I met people from different, well off, culturally food-secure backgrounds. They’d just stop eating, and throw the uneaten leftovers in the trash. Doesn’t matter how good the food was. Doesn’t matter how expensive the food was. Doesn’t matter that you could eat the leftovers later.
I had a really hard time landing on some reasonable middle ground (you can save leftovers, but you’re allowed to stop eating when you’re full, etc.). Made me realize that it’s so much more cultural than personal. Also raises questions about what we’re going to pass down to the next generations, intentionally or not.
At this point, one of the things keeping Twitter alive is that 99 percent of journalists and media outlets have refused to leave, despite all the evidence that there’s nothing to be gained for them on that platform.
It’s just their own FOMO that keeps them there.
I’d wish they’d follow the lead of those organizations who simply left, or, better yet, started up their own Mastodon instances.
Chinese electric car makers get absolutely massive state subsidies. There are companies like Nio that have never made a single dollar of profit. Nio has been losing money on every single car they sell, to the point where they’ve been losing almost a billion dollars in the last quarter alone.
However, China doesn’t care. The state keeps financing these companies, because if they can undermine European and American auto makers to the point where they’re simply unable to compete and maybe even completely collapse, then Chinese car makers will be the only ones left in the market, and they’ll be able to charge any price they want.
And realistically, which American or European car maker will be able to compete with a multitude of Chinese competitors that all can afford to lose billions and billions every year without batting an eye?
So that’s why they want to fight “low prices.”
I would need much, much more solid proof for this conspiracy theory before believing it.
I don’t doubt Israel had some unspecified warnings, but I just think it’s much more likely that it was a mixture of a misguided belief that Hamas was more interested in political power than large scale terrorism, an assumption that any attack would just be “regular” rocket attacks like we’ve seen in the last years, incompetence of Israeli intelligence services, and an over confidence that the fence and Iron Dome would be enough to stop any attack.
Also, Israel doesn’t need Hamas. Just look at the West Bank where Hamas isn’t in power.
Agree though that Bibi shouldn’t be in power.
Not because national anthems are political, that’s one of the dunbest things that’s been said in this thread
Many national anthems are fairly radical political manifestos.
Just because they’ve been put to some music and we’ve gotten used to them doesn’t make them any less radical.
It’s funny to think that statements like “arise, children of the fatherland, against the bloody flag of tyranny” or “O Lord our God arise, scatter our enemies and make them fall!” or “Let’s unite, we’re ready to die! For centuries we’ve been stamped on and laughed at because we’re not one people” should be completely okay and everybody should stand and listen in awe, but “black lives matter” would be too radical and too political for the same setting.
It’s not that you’re not saying it often enough, it’s that you’re stopping halfway through what’s being proposed here.
You’re seeing it as a one-sided, negative thing for the Palestinian side that the atrocities of Hamas are being “singled out” - but you’re completely ignoring the fact that they’re being “singled out” in order to be hidden from children.
This means that children would never learn - at least not on their own, via social media - of these atrocities committed by Hamas. That would appear like a net positive for the Palestinian side.
You’re getting caught up in the “singling out” part while ignoring the “in order to hide it from children” part.
And that’s hardly a good thing either.
That’s an argument, sure.
It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, at least if presented as an argument criticizing Israel.
“We want kids to see all the atrocities committed by our side, but none of the atrocities committed by our enemies” would at the very least be an unconventional approach to war time propaganda.
You know what I’m getting at?
OP is implying parents should be ok with Israeli violence, but not ok with Palestinian violence.
Parents should want their kids to see violence committed by Israel, but they should want their kids to not be able to see violence committed by Palestinians?
Why?
Because they were removed, I’ll type up the sanitized version: the parent comment is pointing out the author of the article is singling out Palestinian violence, but is ignoring the violence, the genocide, being carried out by the Israeli government and the IDF.
You’re still not making sense.
If this is a pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian propaganda plot, then why should parents want their kids to see the violence, the genocide, that is being carried out by the Israeli government and the IDF, but not the atrocities and the terrorism committed by the Palestinians and by Hamas?
Wait, I don’t get this argument.
You’re saying parents are cool with it if their kids see atrocities committed by Israel, but as soon as a Palestinians terrorist group commits atrocities, parents don’t want their kids to see it - implying parents want to protect the reputation of Hamas?
However, the onus to mitigate problems created by one company shouldn’t be their on competitors.
Apple launched AirTags alone, leveraging its massive Find My network, in order to have an immense advantage in the market, and this helped Apple rake in millions and millions of dollars.
It could have coordinated with Google even before the AirTag launch, but this would have probably resulted in missing out on millions in profits. So Apple chose profits over mitigating ethical and moral concerns, and only fixed problems a long time after it started selling the product to customers.
If Twitter is doing business and earning money in the European Union, then it has to abide by national law - just like any other business operating in the EU.
In a scenario where Twitter doesn’t comply with the law, the European Union can fine Twitter, appropriate earnings from the European market, sue in the United States or invoke bilateral agreements, file for extradition, or shut down Twitter in the EU via IP ban and having the app removed from the various national app stores. Google and Apple will comply for their app stores, and European providers will comply regarding an IP ban. Some people might still be able to figure out how to access Twitter via sideloading and VPN, but it would effectively destroy Twitter’s business in the European Union.
So yes, there’s a lot the EU can do.
Why complain about ad hominems after attacking me? You’re the one who lowered the level of the discourse - why are you complaining now?
You were clearly arguing against a position that nobody here took.
That means you either lack the reading comprehension to understand what was stated, or you’re purposefully creating a strawman to argue against.
It’s like flipping over the ad pages in a magazine. It’s like taking the advertisement brochures out of a newspaper and throwing them into the trash. It’s like leaving the room during halftime break. It’s like taping a show without the commercial breaks. It’s like walking past a poster without reading it. It’s like getting your letters from the mailbox and throwing away the advertising mailers. It’s like going to the cinema and talking during the ads that are playing before the movie. It’s like walking down the sidewalk and ignoring the people trying to sell you merchandise. It’s like switching channels when commercials come on.
But for some reason, people are trying to tell me that I’m ethically and morally in the wrong for blocking fucking YouTube ads.