Israel–United States relations and associated politics

[GreenGoo]

Wow, Netanyahu is going full on Putin at this point.

Yes. He's a corrupt criminal that somehow has remained in power. I admit to not following along close enough to understand why he's able to hang onto power despite convictions. He's the perfect role model for drumpf, but drumpf is an idiot and gets by with cult of personality, rather than intelligent exploitation of the system.

Netanyahu had shown himself to be a bad man long ago.

[El Guapo]

Wow, Netanyahu is going full on Putin at this point.

Yes. He's a corrupt criminal that somehow has remained in power. I admit to not following along close enough to understand why he's able to hang onto power despite convictions. He's the perfect role model for drumpf, but drumpf is an idiot and gets by with cult of personality, rather than intelligent exploitation of the system.

Netanyahu had shown himself to be a bad man long ago.

He hasn't been convicted of anything at this point. My understanding is that the proceedings against him are still pending in the Israeli legal system. I don't know much of anything about Israel's legal system or the details of the proceedings, but I assume that (like Trump) Netanyahu has been able to string things out through a combination of expensive lawyers and being a big shot.

At this point being wildly unpopular among the Israeli public may be a more pressing threat to his power than the criminal proceedings.

[Dogstar]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/live-blog/rcna145802

Possible strike by the IDF killed four World Central Kitchen workers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Victoria Raverna]

Also there was a strike on Iran's consulate in Syria? Is that normal thing or a serious escalation?

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/2 ... us-monitor

[LordMortis]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/live-blog/rcna145802

Possible strike by the IDF killed four World Central Kitchen workers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just saw this. Talk about isolating itself. Unless they want to align with Putin... Only Putin gets arms from Iran.

[LawBeefaroni]

What these red cows from Texas have to do with war and peace in the Middle East

Jerusalem — When Hamas spokesman Abu Ubaida began a speech marking the 100th day of the war in Gaza, one confounding yet eye-opening proclamation escaped the headlines. Listing the motives for the Palestinian militant group's Oct. 7 massacre in Israel, he accused Jews of "bringing red cows" to the Holy Land.


The cows he was talking about are red heifers, which now graze at a secure, undisclosed location in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Some Jews and Christians believe they're key to rebuilding the Jewish temple that once stood in Jerusalem, and to beckoning the Messiah.

...
To rebuild it, fervent believers point to the Bible's Book of Numbers, which commands the Israelites to offer "a red heifer without defect or blemish and that has never been under a yoke."

Only with that offering, they insist, can the temple rise again.

...

Finding the red heifers took years. The quest led Mamo not to Jewish breeders but to Christian ranchers thousands of miles away.

"After a long search, we found them in Texas," he said. "Texas red angus."

To bypass strict laws in place at the time that banned the export of U.S. cattle to Israel, the heifers were classified as pets, Mamo said with a laugh. But to those following biblical commandments, the cows are no laughing matter, he added, stressing that it was no publicity stunt.

"Harry Potter is a good story. The Bible is not a story," he said. "The Bible is a way of God to lead us."

...

A massive white altar awaits, where they are to be burned on a plot of land overlooking the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. Mamo said the ceremony must be performed looking directly into where the ancient Second Temple stood, until it was destroyed by the Romans in the year 70.

What Mamo didn't mention is what stands in the temple's place now: The Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque, which are among the holiest sites in Islam.

....

But she makes no secret about what she wants to happen to the Dome of the Rock.

"I believe it's going to go, 100%. The whole thing is going to go to build a temple," she said, insisting that the shrine and its golden dome should be preserved, but relocated.

....

"Everyone says that the building, the Third Temple, is what will bring the war, it would destabilize the Middle East," she said. "The Middle East seems pretty destabilized right now, and the war, if I'm not mistaken, is already here."
....
Hamas dubbed its Oct. 7 terror attack on Israel "the Al-Aqsa Wave," and the group's emblem features the Dome of the Rock behind two crossed swords.

While most Muslims do not support Hamas' violence, they do share its unwavering devotion to sacred ground, says Mustafa Abu Sway, the Imam Al-Ghazali Chair at the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

He told CBS News that removing Al-Aqsa or the Dome of the Rock was "unimaginable," and warned that it would be "opening a Pandora's box that nobody can close."
...
At the recent National Gathering for Prayer and Repentance in Washington, D.C., Mamo spoke of his heifers and his hopes for a Third Jewish Temple. The gathering was convened by U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who gave a keynote prayer before a who's-who of evangelical leaders and congresspeople spoke. Many American evangelicals believe the red heifers will usher the second coming of Christ.

"We're going to accept the Messiah, and we need the Messiah to come," Byron Stinson, a Texan who helped bring the cows to Israel, said at the gathering. "For me, the red heifer is red for the blood of Jesus Christ. That's why it's red."

Now I don't think these cows are the cause of the latest bloody conflict but they're certainly the reason for a lot of the unwavering support of it. Excellent propaganda for the crazy religious zealots on all sides who are increasingly in positions of power.

[GreenGoo]

He hasn't been convicted of anything at this point. My understanding is that the proceedings against him are still pending in the Israeli legal system.

Fair enough. I would have sworn I read he had at least some charges processed against him that resulted in conviction. Obviously I was wrong.

That said, unlike Biden's impeachment, the charges against Netanyahu seem to be significant and grounded in reality. Plus, what democracy has the same head of government for 16 years? That's crazy.

[El Guapo]

He hasn't been convicted of anything at this point. My understanding is that the proceedings against him are still pending in the Israeli legal system.

Fair enough. I would have sworn I read he had at least some charges processed against him that resulted in conviction. Obviously I was wrong.

That said, unlike Biden's impeachment, the charges against Netanyahu seem to be significant and grounded in reality. Plus, what democracy has the same head of government for 16 years? That's crazy.

Agreed - he needs to go. Though to be fair, FDR was president for 12 years and would have been president for at least 16 had he not died in office. But yeah, it's deeply problematic.

I think it's partly a reflection of the deep divides in Israeli society related in large part (but not entirely) to the Palestinian problem post-Oslo. The Israeli left wing mostly does not like the occupation, but also has lacked a viable alternative to sell to the public. The Oslo process ending in the Second Intifada mostly discredited a negotiated peace process among mostly Israelis. Sharon was trying unilateral disengagement, but after the Gaza withdrawal ended with Hamas taking over Gaza and repeatedly firing rockets into Israel (and after Sharon himself had a crippling stroke and then died), the idea of doing that as to the West Bank (which was always going to be politically fraught anyway) was essentially DOA. But if neither of those are seen as workable, what's left?

A big part of what Netanyahu was selling so successfully to the Israeli public was that they could maintain the occupation more or less indefinitely and still be integrated into the world. And to be fair, for most of Netanyahu's tenure it mostly seemed to be working - the wall (or security fence) and other measures cut down terrorism significantly, and the series of treaties between Israel and Arab countries (partly motivated by joint fear of Iran) seemed to indicate that Israel could still be a more or less normal country diplomatically.

The good news is that all the polls indicate that Netanyahu's coalition is going to get shellacked in the next election. I think part of that (though far from the only factor) is that Oct. 7th has discredited Netanyahu's approach in Israel both insofar as he failed to prevent the attack and insofar as the attack (and the international response to Israel's war effort) has discredited Netanyahu's approach to the Palestinian problem.

I also think this will open the Israeli public to try to new approach. So the right Israeli and Palestinian leaders could use this opportunity to make progress on enduring solutions. But getting the right leaders in place and navigating the difficult politics and issues on both sides is going to be incredibly difficult.

[Dogstar]

Following up on the now confirmed IDF strike on the WCK convoy, it was a drone that attacked three times even though the vehicles were marked with the WCK logo, were in a deconflicted zone, and WCK had coordinated with the IDF about the convoy. All to get one suspected militant who wasn't even present in the convoy.

Per Haaretz:

Until the actions that preceded the strike, carried out by a Hermes 450 drone, were completed, the truck reached the warehouse with the World Central Kitchen's three cars, with seven volunteers in them – two dual-national Palestinians (U.S. and Canada) and five citizens of Australia, the UK, and Poland.

A few minutes later, the three cars left the warehouse without the truck, on which the ostensibly armed man was located. According to the defense sources, that armed man did not leave the warehouse. The cars travelled along a route preapproved and coordinated with the IDF.

...

On Tuesday morning, World Central Kitchen executives announced a temporary halt to its operations in Gaza, and that the ship that had departed to Gaza with aid shipments would return to Cyprus.

Netanyahu called the strike unintentional and said they'd work to make sure it didn't happen again, but it strains belief a bit that three separate (with each delayed in time) drone hits on clearly marked cars on a pre-approved and coordinated route was entirely an accident.

[El Guapo]

Following up on the now confirmed IDF strike on the WCK convoy, it was a drone that attacked three times even though the vehicles were marked with the WCK logo, were in a deconflicted zone, and WCK had coordinated with the IDF about the convoy. All to get one suspected militant who wasn't even present in the convoy.

Per Haaretz:

Until the actions that preceded the strike, carried out by a Hermes 450 drone, were completed, the truck reached the warehouse with the World Central Kitchen's three cars, with seven volunteers in them – two dual-national Palestinians (U.S. and Canada) and five citizens of Australia, the UK, and Poland.

A few minutes later, the three cars left the warehouse without the truck, on which the ostensibly armed man was located. According to the defense sources, that armed man did not leave the warehouse. The cars travelled along a route preapproved and coordinated with the IDF.

...

On Tuesday morning, World Central Kitchen executives announced a temporary halt to its operations in Gaza, and that the ship that had departed to Gaza with aid shipments would return to Cyprus.

Netanyahu called the strike unintentional and said they'd work to make sure it didn't happen again, but it strains belief a bit that three separate (with each delayed in time) drone hits on clearly marked cars on a pre-approved and coordinated route was entirely an accident.

To be clear per the article Netanyahu didn't say that the attack was unintentional (obviously the people operating the drone intended to fire the missiles); rather it was "hitting innocent people" that was unintentional. Basically that it was a targeting misjudgment.

If I understand the article correctly an Israeli unit saw an armed person with the WCK convoy; when the convoy stopped that person got out and left, the convoy continued, but the unit must have thought that the guy (who they believed to be a Hamas commander) was still with the convoy and attacked. Presumably the unit commander either believed that the WCK convoy was a fake being used by Hamas or (and I think this is more likely) he decided it was ok to attack a WCK convoy to get at a Hamas commander.

This is the interesting quote to me from an unnamed IDF source:

"It's frustrating," one of the defense sources told Haaretz. "We're trying our hardest to accurately hit terrorists, and utilizing every thread of intelligence, and in the end the units in the field decide to launch attacks without any preparation, in cases that have nothing to do with protecting our forces."

So basically it seems like there are a few plausible explanations:

(1) The unit commander made a poor judgment that the IDF is genuinely unhappy with;
(2) The unit commander was following formal or informal instructions to target any commanders regardless of nearby civilians, and the IDF / Israeli government is throwing them under the bus because of the international reaction;
(3) Israel intentionally targeted a WCK convoy to discourage the distribution of food aid in Gaza;

I tend to think 1 or 2 is far more likely than #3, in part because intentionally targeting a WCK convoy seems so stupid and damaging to Israeli self-interests, but YMMV. Between 1 and 2...not sure. This is where I struggle with differentiating between what's a "normal" war incident and what's not.

[Dogstar]

I tend to think 1 or 2 is far more likely than #3, in part because intentionally targeting a WCK convoy seems so stupid and damaging to Israeli self-interests, but YMMV. Between 1 and 2...not sure. This is where I struggle with differentiating between what's a "normal" war incident and what's not.

I think 2 or 3 is more likely, but as you noted, YMMV. The article mentions an incident on Saturday where an Israeli sniper took a shot at a WCK car and wounded a volunteer. There's a video of yesterday's attack circulating where it's clear that one of the missiles hit right through the logo on the roof of the car, which means that either the IDF didn't give a shit that there were civilians around or they intentionally hit a WCK convoy. There's also a fairly delineated map of where each car was hit after the survivors fled to other vehicles which meant the Israeli drone unit had time to consider its actions and stop... which they didn't.

[$iljanus]

If it was a convoy of journalists from the West Bank or Gaza this would unfortunately be considered just another day in Gaza.

[LawBeefaroni]

To be clear per the article Netanyahu didn't say that the attack was unintentional (obviously the people operating the drone intended to fire the missiles); rather it was "hitting innocent people" that was unintentional. Basically that it was a targeting misjudgment.

"Unfortunately in the past day there was a tragic incident of an unintentional hit by our forces on innocent people in the Gaza Strip. It happens during war."


That's what he said. It can be interpreted both ways. It should be noted this was a prepared, recorded statement on xtwitter.

[El Guapo]

To be clear per the article Netanyahu didn't say that the attack was unintentional (obviously the people operating the drone intended to fire the missiles); rather it was "hitting innocent people" that was unintentional. Basically that it was a targeting misjudgment.

"Unfortunately in the past day there was a tragic incident of an unintentional hit by our forces on innocent people in the Gaza Strip. It happens during war."


That's what he said. It can be interpreted both ways. It should be noted this was a prepared, recorded statement on xtwitter.

I was going by the quote in the Haaretz article that Dogstar linked to. I can't access it now because I'm having issues with their portal, but the quote was something like "there was an incident of our forces unintentionally hitting innocent people". Not sure about the discrepancy, or whether either statement was translated from Hebrew or not, but given the Haaretz quote and the fact that arguing that the attack was accidental is so facially implausible, seems far more likely that what was meant was that it was a targeting error / misjudgment.

[GreenGoo]

I don't get the effort to understand this guy, just as I don't get the effort trying to decipher Drumpf.

They are both garbage people, and in this case, responsible for the deaths of thousands. Who gives a crap what he meant? Is he less of a piece of crap because *this* particular sentence can be interpreted semi-benignly?

Sometimes it's ok to give up on a person and ignore them. I'll pay attention when he says he's pulling the IDF out of Gaza for peace talks. That's about it.

[El Guapo]

I tend to think 1 or 2 is far more likely than #3, in part because intentionally targeting a WCK convoy seems so stupid and damaging to Israeli self-interests, but YMMV. Between 1 and 2...not sure. This is where I struggle with differentiating between what's a "normal" war incident and what's not.

I think 2 or 3 is more likely, but as you noted, YMMV. The article mentions an incident on Saturday where an Israeli sniper took a shot at a WCK car and wounded a volunteer. There's a video of yesterday's attack circulating where it's clear that one of the missiles hit right through the logo on the roof of the car, which means that either the IDF didn't give a shit that there were civilians around or they intentionally hit a WCK convoy. There's also a fairly delineated map of where each car was hit after the survivors fled to other vehicles which meant the Israeli drone unit had time to consider its actions and stop... which they didn't.

Insofar as no one is justifying the strike the key differences in how to interpret it are largely about who is making the decisions. Presumably in a war you can't have central IDF leadership making all the specific targeting decisions - some (most, I would think) have to be made on the ground by unit commanders. So the core question to me is - is this a commander who made a mistake based on bad intelligence? Is it a commander who was reckless and/or stupid in a targeting decision? Was he doing what he understood he was supposed to do based on orders / conversations with superiors? I don't know.

More broadly, I assume inevitably some of those commanders are going to make mistakes and misjudgments. Even if the error rate is something like 5% (to use an arbitrary low number) the number of indefensible strikes like this are going to add up. So the relevance of the sniper shot ... to me the odds of an individual commander and an individual sniper both making independent misjudgments around an organization operating in the middle of a war zone doesn't seem implausible.

But to what extent are strikes like this the inevitable and unfortunate byproduct of a war in a largely urban environment, vs. the foreseeable result of reckless or intentional misconduct by Israeli authorities? For the malchiors of the world, this is clear cut intentional misconduct and anyone who thinks it may be otherwise is either intentionally lying or is an utter dupe. But for me personally - I don't know. Partially due to my biases going into this I tend to be more sympathetic to the "this is unavoidable in this type of war" type arguments, but I acknowledge that and that I lack much of a knowledge base to be especially confident in my assessment of what's plausible and implausible in a war. I also don't really understand how so many other people are able to be so unbelievably confident in their judgments on this.

[Unagi]

Strange how these events (the OMG we don't understand why our troops targeted those people - it wasn't our intent - events) keep happening. Do events like this really happen 'all the time' in war... where a professional relief organization makes formal coordination with 'the army', but 'the army' then targets them anyway?

This is so horrible.

Israel is shitting the bed with their relationship with the world's younger generation. Good luck with that.

[Unagi]

Insofar as no one is justifying the strike the key differences in how to interpret it are largely about who is making the decisions. Presumably in a war you can't have central IDF leadership making all the specific targeting decisions -

How about there being a way to designate that a relief convoy is cleared from attack, and have that order being carried out along a very specific, predetermined time and route?

Is that reasonable to expect in a war ?

[LordMortis]

Strange how these events (the OMG we don't understand why our troops targeted those people - it wasn't our intent - events) keep happening. Do events like this really happen 'all the time' in war... where a professional relief organization makes formal coordination with 'the army', but 'the army' then targets them anyway?

This is so horrible.

Israel is shitting the bed with their relationship with the world's younger generation. Good luck with that.

Especially if the IDF is supposed to be the best trained military in the world. What does that say for our largest and sadly most active military in the world? (or was the most active until like 2022...)

I don't see the world through VR colored glasses (Victoria Raverna) but Israel sure seems to have gone well past the "This is to be expected in war" mark some time ago and that they are using US arms to do it speaks too much of the nation I've lost my nativist patriotism for some time ago.

Events like this should be all over the news but they they're a quick remark before the next thing makes us forget.

[Dogstar]

But to what extent are strikes like this the inevitable and unfortunate byproduct of a war in a largely urban environment, vs. the foreseeable result of reckless or intentional misconduct by Israeli authorities? For the malchiors of the world, this is clear cut intentional misconduct and anyone who thinks it may be otherwise is either intentionally lying or is an utter dupe. But for me personally - I don't know. Partially due to my biases going into this I tend to be more sympathetic to the "this is unavoidable in this type of war" type arguments, but I acknowledge that and that I lack much of a knowledge base to be especially confident in my assessment of what's plausible and implausible in a war. I also don't really understand how so many other people are able to be so unbelievably confident in their judgments on this.

I get it. I can't claim I'm 100% sure either. But Israel has lost the benefit of the doubt with me in terms of their intentions ("we don't mean for this to happen") vs. the practical effects (people dying), whether it be on a large scale with the bombing (directing civilians into safe zones and bombing them) and starvation of Palestinian civilians, or on a smaller scale, with luring paramedics to their death, targeting journalists with tank shells and killing people, shooting a Doctors Without Borders identified house and killing people, or conducting a missile strike on journalists in a car using a drone to name a few. I could go on -- as Unagi noted, this stuff just keeps happening. As Siljanus noted, if it was a convoy of journalists, it might not even be considered unusual. So no, Israel no longer gets the benefit of the doubt from me that it was just a mistake.

[El Guapo]

But to what extent are strikes like this the inevitable and unfortunate byproduct of a war in a largely urban environment, vs. the foreseeable result of reckless or intentional misconduct by Israeli authorities? For the malchiors of the world, this is clear cut intentional misconduct and anyone who thinks it may be otherwise is either intentionally lying or is an utter dupe. But for me personally - I don't know. Partially due to my biases going into this I tend to be more sympathetic to the "this is unavoidable in this type of war" type arguments, but I acknowledge that and that I lack much of a knowledge base to be especially confident in my assessment of what's plausible and implausible in a war. I also don't really understand how so many other people are able to be so unbelievably confident in their judgments on this.

I get it. I can't claim I'm 100% sure either. But Israel has lost the benefit of the doubt with me in terms of their intentions ("we don't mean for this to happen") vs. the practical effects (people dying), whether it be on a large scale with the bombing (directing civilians into safe zones and bombing them) and starvation of Palestinian civilians, or on a smaller scale, with luring paramedics to their death, targeting journalists with tank shells and killing people, shooting a Doctors Without Borders identified house and killing people, or conducting a missile strike on journalists in a car using a drone to name a few. I could go on -- as Unagi noted, this stuff just keeps happening. As Siljanus noted, if it was a convoy of journalists, it might not even be considered unusual. So no, Israel no longer gets the benefit of the doubt from me that it was just a mistake.

I get that. Sometimes it seems like that devolves into a circular argument though - essentially "Israel must be lying about these incidents because it can't be trusted, and it can't be trusted because it keeps lying about these incidents."

And does this stuff happen a lot? Part of the challenge is that I think our views are inevitably going to be impacted by the information flow, which is both naturally distorted by the nature of what makes the news, and subject to the biases involved in which news sources we follow. I'm not naive enough to think that this kind of thing is always an unfortunate accident, but is the misconduct in 1% of cases? 90% of cases?

In some ways I'm making the case for uncertainty, which I don't know how useful that is, but there it is.

[Victoria Raverna]

I think it is more likely that it is unintentional or not ordered by the high up but it is a result of very careless way of IDF operates in Gaza where the way of thinking is that if there are some civilians killed because of their carelessness, it is not a big deal because Palestinians are human animals to them.

Once in a while, they hit something that Americans care about like in this incident then it'll be temporary blow up and people pay attention for a week or so then it'll back to normal where accidental killings are not a big deal.

But in this case, the accidental killings seemed to do what people accused Israel of doing. To use starvation as a weapon. By hitting WCK, the WCK operation is now halted. One more source of food for the starving Gaza population stopped. So while it is not likely, it is not impossible for this attack to be intentional.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68710515

International food charity World Central Kitchen (WCK) is suspending its operations in Gaza following the death of seven of its workers in an Israeli air strike.

Three of the killed aid workers were British citizens, WCK said.

The charity said those killed were part of an aid convoy that was leaving a warehouse in central Gaza on Monday.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has acknowledged that Israel's forces hit "innocent people".

Gaza's Hamas-run media office also blamed Israel.

WCK is one of the main suppliers of desperately needed aid to Gaza. It said that it would "be making decisions about the future of [its] work soon".

According to the charity, the aid convoy was hit while leaving the Deir al-Balah warehouse, "where the team had unloaded more than 100 tons of humanitarian food aid brought to Gaza on the maritime route."

The convoy was made up of three vehicles, including two that were armoured. The BBC understands that all three were hit in the strike.

WCK said it had co-ordinated the convoy's movements with the IDF when it was hit.

A Palestinian medical source told the BBC the workers had been wearing bullet-proof vests bearing the WCK logo.

[Zarathud]

After seeing Israel attacked by thousands of rocket attacks in the months leading up to war, that affects the military’s desire to strike back. Hamas didn’t care who their rockets might hit.

Israel should do better, but there’s a context to what’s happening. Bad decisions aren’t coming from nowhere.

[Victoria Raverna]

After seeing Israel attacked by thousands of rocket attacks in the months leading up to war, that affects the military’s desire to strike back. Hamas didn’t care who their rockets might hit.

Israel should do better, but there’s a context to what’s happening. Bad decisions aren’t coming from nowhere.

Yeah. But one of them is supposed to be a terrorist group and bad guys, the other one is the democratic country which is supposed to be the good guys.

When the good guys behave like the bad guys, they become the bad guys.

[Victoria Raverna]

Reading more about this, it seems like it was not an accidental or unintentional killing, it was an operation to kill a certain target that was not successful because they didn't get the guy. It was only a mistake because they didn't kill their target.

If they managed to kill the actual target, the story would be that they killed important terrorist and the WCK workers were just collateral damage.

They intentional attacked the WCK convoy because they thought there was someone that they want to kill in that convoy.

If that is true, it is crazy how low IDF valued the life of the humanitarian workers at Gaza.

[Exodor]

After seeing Israel attacked by thousands of rocket attacks in the months leading up to war, that affects the military’s desire to strike back. Hamas didn’t care who their rockets might hit.

Israel should do better, but there’s a context to what’s happening. Bad decisions aren’t coming from nowhere.

Justifying bombing relief workers because Hamas fired rockets at Israel months before.

That's a new one.

[Zarathud]

You all want to characterize me as defending Israel’s actions because you want a fight against a straw man. But all I’m doing is adding context that IDF was restrained for months.

Activists always want to look at this with 20/20 hindsight and from a distance. I wish the world was that simple, but it’s not. People’s motives and decisions are much more complicated. It’s still a bad decision, and a known problem of fighting an asynchronous war.

[LordMortis]

You all want to characterize me as defending Israel’s actions because you want a fight against a straw man. But all I’m doing is adding context that IDF was restrained for months.

Activists always want to look at this with 20/20 hindsight and from a distance. I wish the world was that simple, but it’s not. People’s motives and decisions are much more complicated. It’s still a bad decision, and a known problem of fighting an asynchronous war.

I get the context. But so what? Hamas are shit and they've colored many Israelis with hate for very personal reasons. I get that. Blowing up humanitarian aid workers and their humanitarian aid because you were doing a poor job of tracking a known Hamas shit deserves no benefit of context. You shouldn't get to use my tax dollars and more importantly my tacit approval to aid you for that. I don't care if it was a 1 in 10,000 poor decision by out of line independent soldiering... And it doesn't seem to be 1 in 10,000.

[GreenGoo]

Justifying bombing relief workers because Hamas fired rockets at Israel months before.

That's a new one.

Mitigating is not justifying. A little honesty please.

[GreenGoo]

I get the context. But so what? Hamas are shit and they've colored many Israelis with hate for very personal reasons. I get that. Blowing up humanitarian aid workers and their humanitarian aid because you were doing a poor job of tracking a known Hamas shit deserves no benefit of context. You shouldn't get to use my tax dollars and more importantly my tacit approval to aid you for that. I don't care if it was a 1 in 10,000 poor decision by out of line independent soldiering... And it doesn't seem to be 1 in 10,000.

I don't doubt that the IDF are killing things indiscriminately, and they deserve the outrage they are receiving. If not in every instance, then at least in many. But let's not imagine a world where military doesn't make mistakes, because it is the one truism in war. The American military has bombed allied troops more than once, and that's with everyone in the same communication chain, supposedly. The world response? *shrug* Media response? "it's war".

I am not justifying anything. I'm pointing out that if it *was* an accident, it's not an uncommon one, and one that America has made repeatedly.

That said, the absolute best scenario I can imagine in this environment is callous indifference.

[LordMortis]

I'm pointing out that if it *was* an accident, it's not an uncommon one, and one that America has made repeatedly.

And when endemic from the US, just as offensive and worth standing on a soapbox. Most especially, when it comes to humanitarian aid.

[Dogstar]

Justifying bombing relief workers because Hamas fired rockets at Israel months before.

That's a new one.

Mitigating is not justifying. A little honesty please.

Mitigation would make it less severe than it actually is or provide some sort of circumstance that would lessen the IDF's culpability. Justifying is providing reasoning for why something happened to make it righteous. Here, Zarathrud is justifying the pursuit (it wasn't three missiles all at once) and destruction of a relief convoy, staffed by humanitarian workers, who followed the rules, and were there to provide relief to people who the IDF was limiting food aid from reaching to begin with -- because of rocket attacks before the war, which might make the IDF more prone to strike back. What were they striking back at here? Were there triggering rocket attacks we aren't aware of? Are they angry that the citizenry in Gaza isn't completely cut off? Per Haaretz, there was one armed individual who rode with the convoy going to the warehouse, which isn't exactly unheard of in a war zone that's had incidents of people rushing trucks (with injuries and deaths associated) to get aid. Are all non-Israeli lives just worth less as long as they can hit one possible enemy target?

I think Exodor's word choice was correct.

[Unagi]

I think it was as well.

What do the rocket attacks have to do with murdering relief workers in an IDF blessed convoy?

[hepcat]

Reading more about this, it seems like it was not an accidental or unintentional killing, it was an operation to kill a certain target that was not successful because they didn't get the guy. It was only a mistake because they didn't kill their target.

While I'm also upset with Israel over this, your statement makes it sound like they're intentionally targeting aid workers. I don't think that's the case. I think they're just using sloppy intel and/or someone in command was careless. While the difference seems trivial, I do think it's important not to make statements like this. Just as you think it's important to continually note that there wasn't as much sexual violence or brutality against the victims of October 7th as reported in some circles, I think this is also important.

[GreenGoo]

Mitigation would make it less severe than it actually is or provide some sort of circumstance that would lessen the IDF's culpability.

What do you think "mitigating circumstances" means?

Exodor is wrong.

What do the rocket attacks have to do with murdering relief workers in an IDF blessed convoy?

I'm not here to do your heavy lifting for you. If Zarathud's comments didn't already clarify his reasoning, you're intentionally ignoring it.

[Zarathud]

He’s intentionally mischaracterizing my words. IDF has been more discriminating in its targets — for years. There’s something different in their recent attacks.

[El Guapo]

I think it was as well.

What do the rocket attacks have to do with murdering relief workers in an IDF blessed convoy?

To be honest I found Zarathud's initial comments on this a little confusing. To the extent that Hamas's rocket attacks are relevant to what happened here, I think it may make controlling aggressive targeting decisions more difficult, by increasing "kill 'em all" type sentiment among soldiers. Which I think may have been Zarathud's point with the "bad decisions don't come from nowhere" comment.

But literally no one is justifying the strike, including Israel and the IDF. The argument is more about whether this was a mistake or intentional misconduct, essentially.

[Unagi]

He’s intentionally mischaracterizing my words. IDF has been more discriminating in its targets — for years. There’s something different in their recent attacks.

Well, I'm not -intentionally- doing it.
And, I'll take a moment right now to say that I am comfortable in my faith that you're very much "one of the good guys" in this world and I'm truly interested in your side on this.

Perhaps it's semantics. If what you were doing was offering a possible 'explanation' for the local IDF soldier's mentality - that I can accept, and I apologize for claiming you were 'justifying'. I agree that (most) behavior will have an explanation behind it (like the Oct. 7th attacks, for instance), and I am okay with talking about what led to an event, without calling it 'justifying'. I don't think "mitigating" is a good word for it either.

[Unagi]

I think it was as well.

What do the rocket attacks have to do with murdering relief workers in an IDF blessed convoy?

To be honest I found Zarathud's initial comments on this a little confusing. To the extent that Hamas's rocket attacks are relevant to what happened here, I think it may make controlling aggressive targeting decisions more difficult, by increasing "kill 'em all" type sentiment among soldiers. Which I think may have been Zarathud's point with the "bad decisions don't come from nowhere" comment.

But literally no one is justifying the strike, including Israel and the IDF. The argument is more about whether this was a mistake or intentional misconduct, essentially.

Thanks, this was helpful.

FWIW, I think it was really, quite horrible, intentional misconduct.

[Unagi]

I'm not here to do your heavy lifting for you.

God forbid. Easier to just be curt and done with it.