Rising tensions in East Jerusalem

[Aimless]

Interesting development:

Twitter Link

[Aimless]

Sigh. Surgical precision.

Twitter Link

[Loki]

No weaponry is 100% accurate. You shoot enough missiles, some will miss. I will say that Israel doesn't seem to be following the doctrine of proportionality. You're not supposed to bomb a target that is likely to lead to civilian suffering for a minor military objective. Instead, Israel seems to be hitting every target that might hide some Hamas weaponry, regardless of the cost to civilians.

[wiggin]

Loki, it's very difficult to determine proportionality without understanding the information that went into target approval and munition selection. Israel is understandably leery of providing details about operational intelligence. It's a fundamental problem Western militaries have been wrestling with- how do you prove your process is in compliance with principles of distinction and proportionality without compromising opsec? We know that militaries don't do a good job of policing themselves on this but there doesn't seem to be a good alternate mechanism yet.

[Loki]

You can't prove it. But I see no evidence Israel is trying to avoid civilian suffering. They are trying to minimize civilian casualties by letting people evacuate. But giving people time to evacuate is also evidence that the target wasn't that vital (unless it was a large ammo/arms depot).

[rille]

As a professional in the business I can tell you this,
There is currently no such thing as ’smart’, just trigger happy persons with political agendas.

[Aimless]

This was unexpected:

Twitter Link

I would've expected someone like Blinken to wait before making a statement like that. Either he was being careless, or he's okay with casting doubt on IDF's claims.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

Still waiting for confirmation.

[LittleFuzzy]

This was unexpected:

Twitter Link

I would've expected someone like Blinken to wait before making a statement like that. Either he was being careless, or he's okay with casting doubt on IDF's claims.

The latter, I expect. The Biden administration's way of talking out of both sides of its mouth.

The proper position to take remains "a plague on both their houses."

[Aimless]

News now that the Biden admin is pushing Netanyahu to engage in ceasefire talks. No teeth atm obviously; I expect them to drag their heels for a while longer while the IDF continues its attacks. But still a clearer signal of dwindling patience than I'd been expecting. Also a little surprised by Ro Khanna's statements on Twitter and on MSNBC. My memories of US news from 2014 are hazy, so I can't tell whether this is a departure from the norm—whether the overton window (so to speak) has shifted, in mainstream US political discourse.

Meanwhile, the death toll continues to rise sharply. In addition to the damage done to the Qatari ICRCS HQ and the lab, attacks have killed key physicians, on top of the steadily rising tally of dead children.

Twitter Link

Reuters reporting:

Twitter Link

[Steely Glint]

All this because some dipshits wanted to collect rent on land they don't own.

[Aimless]

All this because some dipshits wanted to collect rent on land they don't own.

Sorry can't talk busy writing "it's complicated" in crayon for the kids

[Loki]

Is he trying to lose all remaining support from the US center and left?

Twitter Link

[BluntHorse]

-

[Aimless]

Strong criticism of the US's repugnant cowardice at the UNSC:

Twitter Link

Not unique to the NY times.

https://vimeo.com/552170600

Official guidance, personal choice, or just pervasive dehumanization of Arabs? Who can say?

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

Meanwhile, some families in Gaza have revived a tradition of exchanging children, in order to separate families in the hope that entire families won't be killed all at once.

[Aimless]

Incendiary piece, in Haaretz, about the IDF's destruction of entire families:

Twitter Link

[BluntHorse]

-

[RandBlade]

Jewish Voice for Labour also says they can only speculate. They offer an interesting analysis .

PMSL, they are an *ahem* interesting organisation.

Not to be confused with the Jewish Labour Movement, that is a gaslighting "organisation" set up to defend the Labour Party which was being entirely rightly criticised for its institutionalised racism and antisemitism.

[BluntHorse]

-

[Lewkowski]

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/jew...ve-restaurant/

"An attack on Jewish diners outside a Beverly Grove restaurant by members of a pro-Palestinian caravan Tuesday night is being investigated by police as a possible hate crime.

The incident, which Los Angeles Fire Department spokesperson Nicolas Prange said was originally reported as a large group fight, occurred shortly before 10 p.m. outside the Sushi Fumi restaurant in the 300 block of North La Cienega Boulevard.

The incident was captured on video and shared with KTLA by a viewer who wished to remain anonymous.

A witness to the incident said she was sitting with a group of friends when people in a caravan of vehicles displaying Palestinian flags drove by and began shouting at diners.

The witness said that at one point a group of men jumped out of their vehicles and asked some men if any of them were “Jews.” The fighting broke out when two men replied that they were, according to the witness.

Video shows punches and items being thrown between a large group of men on a sidewalk as customers looked on.

The restaurant staff then rushed patrons inside, locked the doors and called police.

The ordeal lasted about 15 minutes, according to the witness.

Police eventually arrived and restored order.

No one was transported from the scene, Prange said.

Video of the incident was sent to L.A. City Councilman Paul Koretz."

People shouldn't forget there are a lot of terrorists in America too. Hopefully the police find the culprits and the DA actually sticks them with serious charges.

[LittleFuzzy]

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/jew...ve-restaurant/

"An attack on Jewish diners outside a Beverly Grove restaurant by members of a pro-Palestinian caravan Tuesday night is being investigated by police as a possible hate crime.

The incident, which Los Angeles Fire Department spokesperson Nicolas Prange said was originally reported as a large group fight, occurred shortly before 10 p.m. outside the Sushi Fumi restaurant in the 300 block of North La Cienega Boulevard.

The incident was captured on video and shared with KTLA by a viewer who wished to remain anonymous.

A witness to the incident said she was sitting with a group of friends when people in a caravan of vehicles displaying Palestinian flags drove by and began shouting at diners.

The witness said that at one point a group of men jumped out of their vehicles and asked some men if any of them were “Jews.” The fighting broke out when two men replied that they were, according to the witness.

Video shows punches and items being thrown between a large group of men on a sidewalk as customers looked on.

The restaurant staff then rushed patrons inside, locked the doors and called police.

The ordeal lasted about 15 minutes, according to the witness.

Police eventually arrived and restored order.

No one was transported from the scene, Prange said.

Video of the incident was sent to L.A. City Councilman Paul Koretz."

People shouldn't forget there are a lot of terrorists in America too. Hopefully the police find the culprits and the DA actually sticks them with serious charges.

A 15 minute fight with a large group of people and no one even had to be transported from the scene afterward? I dunno, sounds like a staged bit of political theater by evengelist q-anon types trying to do a false-flag.

[RandBlade]

No idea about the case that Lewk brought up LF, but sadly that kind of antisemitic extremism is far too common this side of the Pond. Antisemitism and hatred underpins a lot of support for the 'Palestinian cause' in this country.

Twitter Link

Ceasefire now. Ideally Palestinians would be able to move on from the Hamas terrorists that instigate this cycle of violence every time, but I find that extremely unlikely and no doubt we'll be back here again in a few years time.

PS does Q-anon still exist in America? It seems like people havemoved on to UFOs/UAPs now instead

[RandBlade]

And not to be confused with the respectable British Government, who have a policy to let Israel, with total impunity, use disproportionate violence against Palestinians in the Gaza strip, all the whilst supplying them with weapons.

"Disproportionate" is such an interesting and revealing turn of phrase. Hamas are a terrorist state that seeks the destruction of the only Jewish state on the planet, to wipe out Jews from sea to sea, have the backing of Arab states and Iran that also seeks the destruction of the world's only Jewish state and have sent thousands of missiles into Israel (and hundreds of Hamas rockets landed in Gaza itself killing Gazans).

Of course Israel has a right to defend itself from such a threat. But you cry crocodile tears about it being disproportionate. If Israel turned off the iron dome so 90% of Hamas rockets weren't intercepted then hundreds more Israelis, Jews and Arabs both, may have been killed by Hamas and the death toll would be more proportionate. Is that what you want? Stop defending themselves and have dead Jews and a few more dead Arabs in order to level the playing field?

Meanwhile what's really disproportionate is the coverage of this conflict and the objections to it. China has been occupying Tibet but we never hear from that anymore. China have been killing thousands in Xinjiang, and what do you have to say about that?

Or if you only want to talk about allies, Turkey is a NATO ally and has been attacking Iraqi Kurdistan. They have used powerful weaponry and asymmetrical warfare to clash with and kill Kurds. Thousands of Kurds have been killed in the fighting with Turkey. Yet the silence on this from those obsessed with Israel is deafening.

What is it about the only Jewish state in the world that disproportionately earns your ire?

[wiggin]

RB and Blunthorse, please note that the concept of proportionality in an armed conflict has nothing to do with the casualty ratio or the destructive power of each side's weapons, despite its misuse by media and politicians. If those definitions were relevant, nearly every armed conflict involving a Western country in the postwar period would violate the principle of proportionality and this be conducted in an illegal manner.

Proportionality means that a given attack on a military target must have any expected collateral damage be proportional to the expected military value of the target. You could kill a million civilians and not violate the concept of proportionality, if the target was important enough... Or you could violate it just lightly injuring a single civilian.

[Steely Glint]

please note that the concept of proportionality in an armed conflict has nothing to do with the casualty ratio or the destructive power of each side's weapons

* in international law

[Aimless]

And not to be confused with the respectable British Government, who have a policy to let Israel, with total impunity, use disproportionate violence against Palestinians in the Gaza strip, all the whilst supplying them with weapons.

Good speech, and a wholly deserved—albeit savage—indictment of English hypocrisy and cowardice. England doesn't have the balls or the integrity to uphold its own purported policies wrt Israel and Palestine, and obv. has no hope of ever being taken seriously as any form of moral leader—certainly not in relation to an issue it helped create. Important to note that most of Baroness Warsi's criticism has little to do with the issue of disproportionate and illegal violence in response to attacks. The issue of disproportionate violence against people in Gaza is a red herring in this context; whether you agree or disagree that Israel's response to Hamas attacks is disproportionate, the facts re. eg. the UK govt's stance on illegal settlements remain unchanged.

[RandBlade]

RB and Blunthorse, please note that the concept of proportionality in an armed conflict has nothing to do with the casualty ratio or the destructive power of each side's weapons, despite its misuse by media and politicians. If those definitions were relevant, nearly every armed conflict involving a Western country in the postwar period would violate the principle of proportionality and this be conducted in an illegal manner.

Proportionality means that a given attack on a military target must have any expected collateral damage be proportional to the expected military value of the target. You could kill a million civilians and not violate the concept of proportionality, if the target was important enough... Or you could violate it just lightly injuring a single civilian.

Oh of course, what Israel did in destroying Hamas infrastructure in response to terrorists seeking the destruction of Israel sending rockets into Israel is entirely proportionate.

But even in the abused and twisted way Blunthorse and media meant it, its a preposterous suggestion. Israel could ensure casualty numbers were more proportionate, not by bombing Gaza any less, but instead by turning off the Iron Dome to ensure more dead Israelis. Would that make the situation in Gaza one iota better? Of course not!

[wiggin]

* in international law

This is a very specific word with a very specific legal context and it's used so casually that people think that a mere mismatch in power is illegal. A given action might be unethical, immoral, unwise, or counterproductive, but it could still be legal. Let's use the right language to describe what we're criticizing - both because it's problematic to accuse someone of a crime when you're actually accusing them of something else, and because it complicates the criticism when people can point to reasons why a law has not in fact been broken. It's one thing to accuse someone of libel, quite another to accuse them of being a dick.

Oh of course, what Israel did in destroying Hamas infrastructure in response to terrorists seeking the destruction of Israel sending rockets into Israel is entirely proportionate.

But even in the abused and twisted way Blunthorse and media meant it, its a preposterous suggestion. Israel could ensure casualty numbers were more proportionate, not by bombing Gaza any less, but instead by turning off the Iron Dome to ensure more dead Israelis. Would that make the situation in Gaza one iota better? Of course not!

RB, you're not actually agreeing with me here. The justification for a military campaign is also covered under international law, but the principles of distinction and proportionality refer to individual strikes in the conduct of a war, not the justification for the war itself. Israel might be justified in engaging in armed conflict with Hamas, but it would violate the principle of proportionality if it nuked Gaza City. That might achieve the proximate goal of the conflict (stop rocket fire from Gaza) but the civilian and environmental cost would be wholly disproportionate to the gain. Justification for a war does not give you carte blanche.

The important point to note here is that proportionality has nothing whatsoever to do with casualties on your side or weapons on their side. It has to do with the perception at the time a decision is made to strike, based on all the information available: will the expected military gain of that immediate strike justify the expected civilian losses? You might not have any casualties on your side but still have a valid military objective that you're trying to achieve, and the importance of the objective in relation to the collateral damage is what you need to weigh.

[RandBlade]

This is a very specific word with a very specific legal context and it's used so casually that people think that a mere mismatch in power is illegal. A given action might be unethical, immoral, unwise, or counterproductive, but it could still be legal. Let's use the right language to describe what we're criticizing - both because it's problematic to accuse someone of a crime when you're actually accusing them of something else, and because it complicates the criticism when people can point to reasons why a law has not in fact been broken. It's one thing to accuse someone of libel, quite another to accuse them of being a dick.


RB, you're not actually agreeing with me here. The justification for a military campaign is also covered under international law, but the principles of distinction and proportionality refer to individual strikes in the conduct of a war, not the justification for the war itself. Israel might be justified in engaging in armed conflict with Hamas, but it would violate the principle of proportionality if it nuked Gaza City. That might achieve the proximate goal of the conflict (stop rocket fire from Gaza) but the civilian and environmental cost would be wholly disproportionate to the gain. Justification for a war does not give you carte blanche.

The important point to note here is that proportionality has nothing whatsoever to do with casualties on your side or weapons on their side. It has to do with the perception at the time a decision is made to strike, based on all the information available: will the expected military gain of that immediate strike justify the expected civilian losses? You might not have any casualties on your side but still have a valid military objective that you're trying to achieve, and the importance of the objective in relation to the collateral damage is what you need to weigh.

I understand that and wasn't disagreeing with any of that, my primary point was indeed how the term was misused but even misused its silly.

I agree that nuking Gaza would not be proportionate - based on some media coverage you might think Israel had done that. What Israel has done in reality is proportionate.