• Minotaur@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I think he actually got a little worried about the pushback regarding the most recent bombing of aid vans. Like, even the most pro Israeli outlets and groups online were saying “wow… that was a huge fuck up…”

      Of course, none of them were acknowledging it was likely intentional. But I think in terms of gauging “are the Israeli people cool with us literally starving civilians to death” IDF leadership got a fairly affirmative “no”.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        How do we know it was intentional? Although I guess the practical difference between intentional and callously indifferent is not very large in this context. So maybe it doesn’t matter.

        • WhoLooksHere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          3 months ago

          They were specifically told the itinerary of the aid workers.

          https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/world-central-kitchen-jacob-flickinger-partner/story?id=108866378

          “All three vehicles were carrying civilians; they were marked as WCK vehicles; and their movements were in full compliance with Israeli authorities, who were aware of their itinerary, route, and humanitarian mission,” WCK said in a statement Thursday.

          I’m not sure how it can be accidental if you were told about it in advance.

          And even if for a moment, that the person who aimed the guns didn’t know, it was someone’s job to make sure they did. Someone knew.

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Someone did but it could still be claimed to be “accidental” if that information didn’t make it to the person performing the attack. I’m not saying that’s what happened but it’s plausible. Though I will say at minimum I doubt they would have done this if they knew how well connected these aid workers were. It would have been politically very foolish.

            I think their overall strategy makes it clear that they don’t much care to avoid killing civilians and aid workers that are not well connected. But it’s hard to prove it’s done intentionally.

            • catloaf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              3 months ago

              It’s very hard to prove their intent.

              It’s very easy to prove their negligence.

              We don’t know that they targeted aid workers. We can certainly say that they killed them without identifying them as valid military targets, because they weren’t.

              • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                3 months ago

                I completely agree but legally speaking the intentionality does matter in terms of the genocide case, etc. So that’s why I am curious what evidence we have. But intent is almost always the hardest piece of a crime to prove.

                • WhoLooksHere@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  legally speaking

                  Which law?

                  Because US law requires intent, but I’m not sure ICC/ICJ have the same requirements.

            • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Why are you trying this hard to pretend there is more than one side to this situation? People have given you the facts and you keep snapping back to this CNN passive-voice “we can’t know for sure”.

              • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Because that’s the default response to truth claims that are unproven? I don’t think this hyper-emotional speculation is very helpful personally.

                I don’t really care about your emotions or frankly any emotions other than the people directly affected. I’m trying to sort out what is true and false and what can be definitively proven from the available evidence. But there is a ton of misinformation flying around, so I want to be careful about what narratives I endorse, since many false narratives are being used to justify violence and hatred right now.

        • homura1650@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          3 months ago

          There are 3 possibilities:

          1. Israel internationally bombed a clearly marked aid convoy after being informed of and approving their route.

          2. Israel internationally adopted rules of engagement so lax that they allowed for 3 accidental bombings on a clearly marked aid convoy after being informed of and approving their route.

          3. All of the above.

          The problem for Israel is that all of those possibilities are war crimes.

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Well, what they’re going to claim is that war is hard and this happens to everyone, so it’s not intentional at all. Unfortunately, for people predisposed to believe them, this argument can seem quite reasonable. So that’s why we need to rigorously challenge it using as many lines of evidence as possible.

        • Minotaur@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          We don’t, which is why I say “likely” - but the sheer precision and clear markings on the vehicles makes me doubt the “it was a series of accidents” explanation.

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Maybe I interpreted the word intentionally differently than you meant to use it. My understanding of the IDF’s explanation was that they mistakenly thought the vehicles were Hamas. So by intentional I thought you mean they were knowingly killing aid workers.

            I think everyone agrees the vehicles were deliberately targeted, but why this was done is open to speculation.

            • Minotaur@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              No, we’re of the same mindset. It’s clear the missiles didn’t fall on these vehicles by chance, it’s just up for some debate regarding on if they were deliberately targeted knowing they were aid vehicles or not

        • dariusj18@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          I just war game it, disincentive aid, create famine, after everyone is starving the only people not starving are Hamas.

  • roguetrick@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The U.S. has significant leverage over Israel as its main supplier of weapons and military equipment.

    They sure don’t seem to, considering they never even explicitly threaten to use that leverage. Even the call, based on a situation that supposedly left Biden anguished, was still an implicit threat. At least based on what’s published.

    If Biden wants to actually get any change done he should damn well know that getting rid of Bibi is the only way to do that. The best way to get rid of Bibi is to make the Knesset realize he’s an existential threat to Israel because he’s about to cause the US to cut off support.

  • Altofaltception@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Did Biden threaten to take away Bibi’s new genocidal toys?

    If these corridors open I’m sure that’ll mean the Israelis will have access to new weapons.

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    There’s thousands of trucks right outside Rafah. We don’t need more “aid corridors”. We don’t need more piers to bomb WFC vehicles on. Gaza is like 25 miles long. A truck can drive 25 miles.

    Just let the trucks in.

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Biden waits for Israel to kill a bunch of aid workers with no consequences

    Biden tells Bibi to “open corridors” for aid into the North.

    Now Bibi and Biden can claim they’re “humanitarian” despite knowing most aid workers are too afraid to enter the North.

    Liberals are gonna eat this shit up when the biweekly “vote blue no matter who” post rocks up on the front page of lemmy.