OK. So by that logic, let’s say you are touring Europe and have a heart attack. The paramedics are in the area and available, but refuse to take you to the hospital. You are left to die on the street.
You think you deserve such foul treatment?
When a government is informed that people are dying within its waters, and the gov has the capability to respond but deliberately chooses not to because the victims are “african”, you think that the government bears no responsibity for their deaths?
Is it really so different though? The outcome of both situations is the same. Migrants are dying, through direct action and deliberate inaction.
Mediterranean nations have the opportunity to protect lives, but instead they choose kill / let migrants die.
You are defending willful negligence that leads to the deaths of migrants.
Up to 1 in 13 migrants die in the Mediterranean. Italy as well as Greece have been allowing migrants to die as a part of deterrence-based migration policy. Rescuing the passengers of capsized migrant vessels has been criminalized. There are plenty of articles that confirm these facts. Here is one example.
Yes, this answers all my questions. I now understand completely.
Are you trying to equate the ideology of a political regime with a minority population of South Africans?
South Africa had no right to exist as an apartheid state, and Israel has no right to exist as an apartheid state.
After apartheid ended and living conditions improved, black South Africans didn’t go and slaughter every white South African as retribution, so when Israel says freed Palestinians would slaughter all Israelites, why should we believe them?
If the occupation ended today and Palestinians were allowed to live fairly and given ample resources to rebuild, what reason would they have to seek further conflict? If treated fairly, why would Palestinians act any differently than the South Africans freed from apartheid? This conflict is ultimately the direct result of unfair treatment after all.
Relevant username?
destroying as much fossil fuel infrastructure as possible is a good thing
Maybe not when doing so would release as much methane as a small country.
Somewhat conflicted on the “deliberate targeting”
Intentionally striking hospitals, aid workers, journalists, and families in their homes, is the deliberate targeting of civilians.
Still certain that Hamas knew what would happen and already had a plan to use it for propaganda purposes.
When a faction commits war crimes, the propaganda writes itself.
Israel already have all the weapons they need to flatten Gaza completely.
Yet the US continues to send military equipment and munitions.
The only people who can stop this suffering is the Israeli and Palestinian people
Not entirely. Israel relies heavily on foreign (US) capital. Threat of divestment and/or sanctions would likely be quite effective.
Say there is a car with no human driver, that is being sold as requiring “no human input other than set destination, stop, and go”.
If that vehicle crashes, you think the person who bought the car (the passenger) has legal liability, and not the manufacturer?
That’s like being a passenger on a bus and getting sued if the bus driver hits a parked car.
I’d say the scale of civilian death achieved through the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure is so extreme, it could not have been foreseen. It is a vastly disproportionate response.
No, they knew, and counted on it to get support and to wreck any goodwill Israel had with their neighbours and the world.
This is just wrong. The western powers have unwaveringly supported Israel from the beginning. Only just recently has the US decided to perhaps reduce the weapon shipments to Israel, after vast destruction and loss of life has already occurred.
Are we talking truly autonomous vehicles with no driver, or today’s “self-driving-but-keep-your-hands-on-the-wheel” type cars?
In the case of the former, it should be absolutely the fault of the manufacturer.
Financial irregularities brought to light by the raid and subsequent investigations led to a conviction of the plant’s chief executive Sholom on bank fraud and related charges.
He was sentenced to 27 years in prison, but this led to an outcry by a bipartisan group of more than 100 former high-ranking and distinguished Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, prosecutors, judges, and legal scholars who expressed concern with the evidentiary proceedings in his case as well as with the severity of his sentence.
On December 20, 2017, then-President Donald Trump commuted his sentence to time served, and his trial on immigration charges was canceled.
Same article.
Neither the owner, Aaron Rubashkin, nor his sons Sholom and Heshy, who were in charge of the management of Agriprocessors, were convicted of immigration or labor law violations, although both Aaron and son Sholom were initially charged with 9,311 counts of child labor law violation, for which they could have faced over 700 years in prison if found guilty. All charges against Aaron were dropped right before the trial was scheduled to begin, and after a five-week trial Sholom was acquitted on all charges of violating child labor laws.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postville_raid
Undocumented workers have no rights. If they don’t accept the bad pay and conditions offered, they get reported. The state takes the current group of “troublemakers” away and you hire fresh immigrants.
All charges being dropped against the owners of the plant just before the trial is either corruption or a plea deal. The owners very likely snitched on themselves in exchange for amnesty.
Continued in reply…
Hamas attacked Israel, counting on the response being disproportionate and bloody. They wanted dead Palestinians
Yeah bro, they really just wanted to murder-suicide their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters Jonestown style. Trust me bro, they got what they deserved, bro.
It is disgusting to suggest they wished for the massacre of their people.
Massacring and forcibly evicting an existing population to create an ethnostate, which then subjugates the previous inhabitants under an apartheid regime, is generally seen as a “not very nice” thing to do. To suggest that territorial disputes can only be resolved through war is unimaginative, ignorant, and flatly incorrect.
Your question is unimportant because ethnostates and the forcible acquisition of territory are always fundamentally unjust.
A civilian population is being brutalized right now. The killing must stop for there to be any reconciliation.
Thanks for the better source
A stabbing is a stabbing. It’s not terrorism, and the article provided no evidence of any “radicalization”.
Media literacy?
I don’t know, seems like an unfortunately common health crisis.
But “terrorism” sure gets clicks.
I’m sorry, but there is no situation where it is permissible to stand idle as someone suffers an untimely and preventable death.
Even soldiers at war, captured in foreign territory without visas, are entitled to lifesaving care.