I do agree that terrorism is a problem that needs to be dealt with. The problem is when innocents get caught up in the middle. If you just call a whole people or whole religion terrorist as an excuse to get rid of them, you’re just a generic conquerer, and a liar on top.
The only issue with that is Israel’s wish to remain a Jewish state. If they added all of those Palestinians as free and equal citizens, then that would shift the demographics of Israel sufficiently to put that at risk. So, they have to choose between values of freedom and equality, vs being a Jewish state, vs giving up that land.
Or they could attempt to remove all the people somehow.
No easy solutions, unfortunately. As usual for the Middle East.
Extremely complicated, certainly. But I hope my point that the apartheid claim, very specifically, is pretty hard to argue with comes through. It does not refer to any Israeli citizens, that’s a separate topic. It is not strictly hamas propaganda, it’s just a criticism of one part of a very complicated and difficult situation. The line that it is propaganda is actually itself, propaganda.
The only way to make it untrue was if Palestinians had full legal control over the West Bank, which they do not. Gaza is a murkier situation. It’s really about the West Bank though, not hamas or Gaza.
Except it is not under full Palestinian control either. Some things are controlled by Palestinians, other things are indeed controlled by Israelis. When a country is exercising partial control over citizens that are not its own, something odd is happening.
You can justify it if you like, but it is not the normal way of things where free people are concerned.
The claim of Israeli apartheid is not a hamas claim, it’s acknowledged by various Israelis as well. Neither Gaza nor, especially the West Bank, has had full independence in many years.
Note, I am not talking about any Israeli citizens. I am talking about Israeli non-citizens who live under Israeli restrictions and off-and-on military control. This is the nature of apartheid. A people that is separate, but not fully independent. An in-between state of conquest, where you’re sort-of conquered but not really and have some, but not full, freedoms.
Except they would routinely send in military forces to capture terrorist suspects in a process they referred to as “mowing the grass”. It’s even more pronounced in the West Bank, where the Israeli settlements are thoroughly intermingled with the Palestinian ones, and the Palestinians had relatively few powers over their own security.
It’s not a simple thing, unfortunately. Middle Eastern politics seldom are, just in general.
De facto control does not mean 100% control over every event that happens. People are still humans, and capable of making errors. It is not mind reading/mind control powers, those are still impossible.
The claim of Israeli apartheid does not pertain to the status of Israeli Arabs fyi. It pertains to de facto Israeli control of Gaza and the West Bank, where any time they want the IDF can exercise as much control as they want, by virtue of superior firepower.
Hamas, for instance, only persisted because the Israelis allowed it. Israel controlled the majority of access to the regions, and could and did unilaterally police them with military force at will.
Sure. Just make sure you figure out some sort of way to either guard against or punish
“oh noes, I feel threatened.” bang
Because only a fool would think that won’t be taken advantage of.
They don’t have to come back on this shuttle, there are other ways to get them home. Assuming it’s being resupplied at the normal level, they should be able to remain aboard the station for a few extra months without any trouble. That would be without any extra resupply as well.
Ah, LinkedIn, exactly where I want to get nuanced answers to weird questions from.
Here in the US we have one of the two main political factions regularly threatening terrorism, execution and even war.
When people are already arguing to take you out behind the chemical shed and shoot you, it’s a little out of touch to think they give two shits about your future health in a changing climate. Or our planet, they probably think they can get to Mars with Elon or something, or god will rapture them, or whatever they think, I don’t know.
You think people should care about future generations? They probably should, but we have parents that don’t give two shits about their own kids, much less anyone else’s.
Oh hell yes, it’s about time.
wtf is going on in this dudes head that he thinks we should try to match combined Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals without increasing defense spending…? Nukes got cheap or something? Does he want nukes to get cheap?
These people can’t think past simple number totals. Number of nukes. Number of ships. Number of soldiers. He’s never heard of quality vs quantity or technological superiority? Superiority in tactics, strategy, morale, any of that? Just sheer mass?
I mean, yeah, we can probably save some money with improved procurement practices, but not that much. A nuclear powered aircraft carrier is still basically a floating city, the things ain’t cheap.
Little bit of A, little bit of B. We shouldn’t think that just because we are fighting for peace and equality that we cannot be infiltrated and manipulated to someone else’s advantage. They’re not mutually exclusive possibilities.
If there would be a clear benefit for doing so, and it can be done in a cost effective manner, then it is reasonable to think it might be happening. When you consider the strong motive provided by being involved in an active war with hundreds of thousands of casualties and many billions being spent, it’s just not something we can afford to ignore.
Taking it back to Gaza, a genocide is a genocide. It’s an attempt at eradication of a whole group of people. Of course it’s heinous, and it’s difficult for me to think of any other way to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip, which clearly is the goal as said by their own nationalists, without killing the people there. If there are kids there, they will be involved.
This is inherently heinous, by virtue of its scale and overarching goal. The fact that it necessitates killing children is simply obvious to me, and in no way changes how I see the whole thing. It’s like pointing out a candle when the whole house is already on fire.
I suppose a core difference is I’m not really trying to convince anyone of anything regarding Gaza though. Lemmy is overwhelmingly against the genocide, which I think is good and correct. I’m more interested in personally understanding various things, and correcting misinformation when I run into it, particularly with regards to history or science. Which is why I originally jumped in to talk about the prevalence of genocides in the modern era.
Back to child murder, you’re still applying an inherent value, this time on the good of the society, where children have more years ahead of them. This is still a cultural influence, a purely objective position would not apply additional value to anything like human health or happiness. Nobody has to care about the future, and I’d say recent times illustrate that a great many people even desire a future of human extinction. All these apocalypse-cheering types you run into online, the hardcore religious rapture folks, groups like that. I do not agree with these positions, but I cannot understand them unless I am capable of being coldly objective about these things.
Ah, I missed that minimum, thank you. Perhaps murder is murder was a bit exaggerated, but my primary point that the traits of the victims don’t really matter, and shouldn’t really matter, still stands.
I think what’s happening, incidentally, is a cultural thing. You are part of a particular culture, and so you and ideas you spend a lot of time around have a certain view. I don’t think it is as broad as you think, though, where the “vast majority” agrees with you.
Being interested in a technical understanding, I’m intentionally ignoring any cultural influences I was raised with (like, “women and children first!”, stuff like that), because I am worried they are ultimately inaccurate, and may introduce bias into how I am thinking about it. This is why Occam’s Razor does not matter to me, it is a guideline and nothing more. I want to be technically, precisely correct, as much as I can manage. A guideline is no good for that.
That said, I am curious if the more detailed paper changes my understanding any. The law is an interesting subject for me.
Three results for ctrl+f child.
First somewhat supports your claim.
First Degree Murder 25 years to life
Assault Causing the Death of A Child Under 8 Years of Age (Penal Code 273ab(a)) 25 years to life
The second specifies it has to be someone under your care.
the victim was a vulnerable person under the care of the offender (a child under 18, elderly person, or disabled adult)
The third has the same sentence for both.
Manslaughter Maximum of 40 years in prison (eligible for parole after 25 years if the defendant was under 18)
Manslaughter of a child under 10 10 to 40 years in prison without parole (eligible for parole after 25 years if the defendant was under 18)
Then there are 47 other states that seem to make no distinction, supporting my opinion that traits of the victim do not really matter.
I’ll check the other read later, it sounds like a deeper look.
Okay, so do murderers of children get worse sentences then, on average? With supporting data, preferably.
Murder and manslaughter are differentiated via intent, same with things like first or second degree murder. Afaik, the traits of the victims are not taken into account, that I’ve ever heard anyway.
Don’t underestimate the power of shitposting.
That said, the Fediverse products are still behind in features, polish and ease-of-use. The mainstream prizes these surface-level things more than any others. It will take years of development still to fully catch up in that regard. So, it’s the long-haul.