What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
As part of the ceasefire agreement the US has agreed to take control of aid delivery to Gaza. Israel has decided that it will not cooperate with any organizations that they consider to be allied with Hamas. This article is sort of mixing these things up where they really have nothing to do with each other. Those NGOs that operate inside Gaza are not subject to Israel's restrictions, those restrictions apply in Israel, and anyways the subject of how aid gets to Palestinians is not in Israeli hands any more.
Israel's critics have consistently been complaining about aid delivery to Gaza. So now that there [EDIT: clearly] is aid getting to Gaza they decided they're going to complain about how that aid is monitored.
Modern America is the complete antithesis of 'The Buck Stops Here.' It's more of an 'I have absolute power, and none of the accountability' sort of place.
If the president, or one of his armed, masked thugs with a license to kill can't ever be held accountable for the evil, vile shit they do, why should some low-level SWE feel any remorse or responsibility for those CLs?
---
The solution? Don't tolerate it. Don't settle for no accountability. Don't think this is no big deal, or business as usual. The only way out of this, if power is ever taken back, is disproportionate punishment for the guilty. The country can move on and heal after justice is fairly apportioned.
Incidentally, both war crimes, and deprivation of rights under color of law are capital crimes in the United States.
You cannot kick down doors with AI. You cannot infiltrate meetings with AI (well, at least not if the meeting holders have good opsec).
AI is great if you want to identify targets, but it does not move the needle very much on an occupation. If you want to preserve the area you're occupying then you will have to pay for it in blood.
That wouldn't even be necessary. A siege/blockade would cripple any resistance after enough attrition. Take any moderate or large city. It's hard to maintain hundreds of thousands to millions of people with no running water, electricity, agriculture, fuel, healthcare, etc..
Due to the Iron Dome and shelter in every apartment building. The government prioritizes defense of its citizens.
It hasn't for many decades now. The armaments that civilians are allowed to legally own pale in comparison to what the military has. AI powered drones would just automate turning people into pink mist.
Also, given that many 2A proponents still believe in it as a legitimate “correction” mechanism, Gaza should be the final wake up call.
Bullshit.
War is not a genocide.
No, not wrong. Hutu committed genocide. Turks committed genocide against Armenians. But the war in Gaza is not a genocide once you consider facts and compare to other modern conflicts.
> and try to understand my wider point
Your point is founded on falsehoods.
"War" could one day be waged against whatever group you belong to, as well. You may wish for the country waging it to follow the Geneva Convention so that your sons gain a small chance of becoming POWs and returning to you, instead of being destroyed by an autonomous drone. Comments like yours endorse the actions that are being done; we're beginning to recognize the term "hasbara" for them.
Is it your noble calling? From the Temporary Constitution of the State of Palestine (2026)[1]:
Article 4 – Islam, Sharia and Christianity
1. Islam is the official religion in the State of Palestine.
2. The principles of Islamic Sharia are a primary source for legislation.
[1] https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/2026...
I have no issue with Islam being the religion of Palestine, at least not an issue so strong that murdering its people seems like the correct path forward to me. I suppose your moral reasoning differs on the topic, but it's obviously motivated reasoning based on loyalties I cannot share.
Gaza is Swiss-cheesed with hundreds of miles of military tunnels. If any attack on a tunnel is disallowed because of civilian buildings above it, I predict many countries will start adopting the Hamas strategy of putting military bases under civilian buildings. That way, every attack on your bases becomes a war crime by your enemy - you can't lose!
Of course, both of our posting is pointless, as we know neither will convince the other. You have an advantage in that your particular side is in power; but I bite my thumb at you.
> your comment makes you bear complicity to them, in a small degree, as you serve as an apologist for such actions online.
Can Israelis act as they see fit in defense, or no?
Well, you stated your position multiple times w.r.t. Palestinian rights, so I think for the sake of completeness you can state your position on the rights of Israelis as well.
So, do the Israelis have a right to act as they see fit, or no?
I am not sure it truly even matters, practically speaking. Laws that cannot be enforced are merely suggestions.
If we can establish, through published doctrine, what we will do in certain situations, then other nations can reason about our decisionmaking process. They can compare our actions to our policy, and make judgements about our trustworthiness as national actors. If we choose to act irrationally, or against our own doctrine, we become untrustworthy and other players have to adjust their game accordingly. That's the "enforcement" - and you can see this in action, e.g. with Mark Carney's recent speech.
Great. Which describes a very specific thing. good.
> and in the minds of many, many people all over the world, the term applies here.
In minds of many people many things were acceptable. I am not sure this kind of reasoning is a good strategy. In minds of many Hutu, Tutsi did not deserve to live. Were Hutu right?
> "War" could one day be waged against whatever group you belong to, as well. You may wish for the country waging it to follow the Geneva Convention so that your sons gain a small chance of becoming POWs and returning to you, instead of being destroyed by an autonomous drone.
This is very good point. Unfortunately, Palestinians did not follow Geneva convention. Firing unguided rockets in barrages towards population centers with the goal of overwhelming air defense systems is very much non-conventional.
> Comments like yours endorse the actions that are being done;
How come? Do you see a difference between saying "it's okay to kill civilians" and debating the merits of using one term vs. another to describe an event?
> we're beginning to recognize the term "hasbara" for them.
It seems to me an easy way out. Why discuss the merits of an argument, if you can simply say "it's hasbara" and walk away?
I don't need to involve other conflicts in this situation. This is a "whataboutism". Wrongful actions in another conflict do not justify future conflicts. The actions the world has seen do not simply go away because of your comment. I don't need to rehash every factual news article on the topic to justify my position, nor do I need you to rehash the glazing opinion pieces that justify yours; we won't move the needle that way, will we?
> if you can simply say "it's hasbara" and walk away
I'm not walking away, but surely we can both see that there will be no agreement between us. All that I request is that you do not place an explosive device in a pager and send it to me, as that would be very inconsiderate; my neighbour works the night shift and the resulting shockwave would ruin his daytime sleep.
No, “whataboutism” is using shifting a conversation to a different issue. For example:
Person A: "The democrats did X!"
Person B: "But the republicans..."
Person B is engaging in whataboutism.
I am not discussing Hutu. What I am doing is I am providing you an example why the reasoning that majority is never wrong is a fallacy via an example.
> Wrongful actions in another conflict do not justify future conflicts. The actions the world has seen do not simply go away because of your comment.
Neither because of yours. Palestinians shoot rockets towards civilians for the past 20 years. Tells us quite a lot who’s the “genocidal” here.
> I don't need to rehash every factual news article on the topic to justify my position, nor do I need you to rehash the glazing opinion pieces that justify yours; we won't move the needle that way, will we?
I am not trying to change your mind. I am posting here for others to see your double standards and flaws in your reasoning. They will see and judge themselves.
> All that I request is that you do not place an explosive device in a pager and send it to me, as that would be very inconsiderate; my neighbour works the night shift and the resulting shockwave would ruin his daytime sleep.
Interesting choice of words here. Should I ask you not to blow yourself on the bus, or in a cafe? Or in a wedding? This is good that you wrote it, it shows exactly what I wanted to see.
I'll just quote Wikipedia for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war
> As of 21 February 2026, at least 75,226 people (73,188+ Palestinians[4] and 2,039+ Israelis)[7][8][9][10] have been reported killed in the Gaza war according to the Gaza Health Ministry (GHM) and Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including 248 journalists and media workers,[11] 120 academics,[12] and over 224 humanitarian aid workers, a number that includes 179 employees of UNRWA.[13] Scholars have estimated 80% of Palestinians killed were civilians.[6][5][14] A study by OHCHR, which verified fatalities from three independent sources, found that 70% of the Palestinians killed in residential buildings or similar housing were women and children.[15][16]
> Should I ask you not to blow yourself on the bus, or in a cafe?
Nope, that's the wrong prejudice for my intersectional group, but it certainly reveals some of your own biases.
And? What do these figures tell you? You are accepting a very lazy explanation for the disparity in the number of casualties and calling a day.
I will give you an example where with the same logic you will arrive to an unconventional conclusion. There was order of magnitudes more German civilians killed by the US forces during WW2 than the other way around. Does it mean that Nazi Germany are the good guys here? Probably no.
One alternative explanation why there was more Palestinians killed than Israelis is because:
1. Israelis have shelters, so they have places to hide from rockets
2. Israelis have Iron Dome and alert systems to alert civilians of incoming rockets
Palestinians did not have these things. Moreover, Gaza's government used underground facilities only for military purposes and did not allow civilians to hide there for the duration of hostilities.
As a result, it is reasonable to assume that there will be more causalities on the side that has fewer defenses.
But, you can stick to your intellectually lazy argument that paints a very specific picture.
> Nope, that's the wrong prejudice for my intersectional group, but it certainly reveals some of your own biases.
You have no idea what my biases are. You were the one who went with personal insinuations, not me. I just showed you that this type of discourse is not very productive as it lead nowhere.
So, what did your pager anxiety outburst tell us about your biases?
It told me to avoid public places for a few days until you move on to pestering some other commentator with your pro-genocide views.
been seeing lots of these attacks on defense companies without providing a better alternative and a concrete plan they can execute