Yeah. The EU endorsing and preferentially using OSS is a good concept, but there should be way less specifics in there.

So do you think if the Iranian government fell (not far fetched, as you mentioned - they’re domestically unpopular), the issue would go away? I really don’t. They’re part of it, but it seems more like opportunism to gain support and influence than anything else.

human beings with consciences

That’s never stopped us humans before. Germans are nice people, too. And Palestinians, for that matter - and yet Oct. 7 happened. Regardless of what the Torah says, we’re not special of different from the rest.

Look, it’s easy enough to make make wild assumptions, but at that point you’re on the same level with the one-state-solution people. I want my government to treat this like every other international ethnic conflict, because that’s what it is. Putting the Bosnians or Serbs individually in charge of the former Yugoslavia wouldn’t have been good, and neither will helping the Israelis do whatever they want.

Modern industrial economies are really complicated. I like trains. To make trains, you need parts, labour, equipment and power. They themselves need to be made, which uses parts, labour, equipment and power, and meanwhile you have competing uses of all those things for making, I dunno, printing presses, or for completely different things like farming or art curating. If you drew it all out as a diagram it would get super interconnected super fast.

Meanwhile, even a simple binary choice like which of two lots a rehab center should go on can be very politically complicated. Anarchists like to handwave it away with “we’ll figure it out together”, and I really don’t find that convincing.

Markets offer a system that’s proven to work insofar as if you need to buy a train or a hair clip or lunch someone’s always selling it. How do you guarantee that, or something similar?

Is that why Israel keeps telling Gazans and Lebanese people to move out of target areas?

I agree that propaganda is bad, but both sides make it. That’s why I like hard numbers so much.

It’s clear they want to look merciful, especially to their Western patrons. You’ll recall that the Nazis had a voluntary emigration program at first, and then blamed anyone still around for not leaving. (Israel isn’t the Nazis, but maybe Yugoslavia)

As for your numbered plan, I feel like it makes some unrealistic assumptions. Like that step 1 is possible, and that Israel won’t keep building out settlements instead of actually helping Palestine. It’s basically Likud’s publicly announced plan, which the IDF leadership itself doesn’t buy.

In practice, if they try that, insurgent activity will never stop, and the Israeli occupation will never turn into a strong Palestinian state. It’s just a matter of time then before Israelis get tired of it and contemplate something more extreme, as a minority already openly are.

Not that I’m aware of. AFAIK nobody collects hard long-term data right now, and I’m actually working actively on a system to do it.

Just based on me peaking at current federation stats every once in a while, .world has grown relative to the niche but early-arriving .ml/heaxbear/lemmygrad sphere, which makes me think it’s growing overall.

Boo!

Whatever, this is far from the end of the story, and Lemmy has nothing but time. The bigger they are, the harder they fall in the end.

Glad to hear that’s not what you’re saying - it really feels like that’s where the region is headed.

What’s the alternative to a two-state solution? One state is a pipe dream right now, and the status quo leaves Israel unsafe. Even if every single individual Hamas fighter was killed somehow, there’s a lot of Palestinians who want revenge for the destruction of their whole world, and another organisation would start.

So, that’s a no.

As long as there’s an Arab or Persian population around and angry, there’s no 100% safety. I’m sure you know that. If anything that stands in the way of Israel’s safety is a legitimate target, which is what you’re saying at this point, you’re talking about genocide.

This is the part where I mention I myself am Jewish, if never practicing, and that kind of thing is painfully ironic.

I guess the argument is that the lidar scan was for something else? And, of course, it makes a better headline.

Yeah, that changes it a bit - that definitely has more of a creep factor. I still question if it’s really the kind of thing that should land you in jail for a long time.

Groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda still exist but they have no power because they have no territory. Israel has now done the same to Hamas.

They’re less of a threat, that’s true, but they’re far from gone.

Okay, so you’re done then? We can have a two-state solution with the PLO in charge in Palestine, and they can rebuild and control their own non-Israeli borders? That’s what I think should happen next, as does the broader international community.

Gaza is denser than a typical Arab area (gee, I wonder why) but the construction and customs are pretty much the same. Nothing about it morally, legally or tactically justifies flattening it any more than Fallujah or Kandahar.

I did read the entire thing - it’s not long. Yes, you can unintentionally harm civilians, proportionately.

It’s not intrinsic to urban warfare to do it this way, either. Compare any of the American operations of this millennium.

Hmm, they managed to get on techcrunch. Impressive. So many little fediverse projects just don’t.

Loops is not yet open sourced, nor has it completed its integration with ActivityPub, the protocol that powers Mastodon, Pixelfed, PeerTube, and other federated apps.

Ah, it’s a startup with a hypeman budget that might federate, that’s why.

Edit: Although it’s by the Pixelfed guy and run by donation?

Vague insofar as it’s totally left to courts and individuals to interpret what the exact threshold of disproportional is. That’s why there’s a cottage industry in dissecting the ethics of every individual thing the US did in it’s recent wars. Damage and casualties are extremely lopsided here, though, even if you argue the lopsidedness is justified somehow.

I was trying to include the nuances to be fair to you, but apparently that was just confusing.

Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions?

The main mention is Article 57, called Precautions in Attack, and it has this nice little section:

5. No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

From a Westpoint academy article I just stumbled on, on proportionality:

The rule of proportionality requires that the anticipated incidental loss of human life and damage to civilian objects should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected from the destruction of a military objective.

The military objective here being a few Hamas fighters sprinkled around, and civilians and civilian objects being all of Gaza. I’m now pretty certain there isn’t a loophole based on what you’re doing or thinking at the time, like you seem to be suggesting.

But have you considered that it’s working for them, now?

I assure you, I don’t know what exact rules you mean, and suspect they don’t exist. (No shade on you, though)

As far as I know, proportionality is vague, but applies on every scale, in every situation. The actual lawyers for Israel have argued that their overall response has been proportional. (Because Hamas is hiding in the Gaza strip, and so it’s all a legitimate target to vapourise. By that standard, they’re right, and they’ve actually been generous, but it’s a dumb standard)

It is a principle applied to specific strikes within the context of military action that is justified under international law.

Okay, who says that. That’s an incredibly narrow context, I’m not even sure what “strikes” would mean here - since it’s usually applied to a tactical context that’s way below the granularity of any military treaty I’ve ever seen.

Well, I maintain it would work better if it “only” took a 3/4 majority to expel a member.