Cloudflare capcha page
www.timesofisrael.com
  • Maggoty@lemmy.worldEnglish
    82·
    5 months ago

    Oh no, not another heated exchange of words.

    Anyways, time to ship more 2,000 pound bombs over there.

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    82·
    5 months ago

    It’s about 6 months too late, maybe more, but I’ll take it

    Now maybe try some kind of fuckin consequences maybe, before another 10% of the population of Gaza gets buried under rubble or dies of scurvy or infection or being shot by a sniper

    • wagesj45@kbin.run
      29·
      5 months ago

      I agree, but it’s all relative. This is coming from Biden who has been a huge supporter of Israel, letting them do pretty much whatever they want to do since forever. This seems like a huge step for the man, given where he’s coming from.

      edit: Just realized I wasn’t super clear. I was referring to the consequences part and how even if we want that, just Biden saying something as was reported is a pretty big step from where we were. I pretty much agree completely with @mozz@mbin.grits.dev.

      • Infynis@midwest.socialEnglish
        16·
        5 months ago

        There have been a ton of reports like this, where he allegedly gives Bibi a talking to behind closed doors, and then publicly continues to fully support him

        • Vittelius@feddit.orgEnglish
          2·
          5 months ago

          White House staffers even have a nickname for it. It’s called the “hug Bibi strategy” which reportedly has been in place since the Obama administration.

          So I think the reports are accurate. Biden seems to think publicly supporting Israel is the best way to arrive at a ceasefire. Of course doing something ineffective and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.

          What complicates matters is that there are actually good reasons to supply Israel with some military equipment. Many Israelis are living there in 3rd or sometimes 4th generation. Putting the let’s call it complicated circumstances of Israels founding aside, they are a people and deserve self-determination (just like the Palestinians do). The often repeated line “Israel has the right to defend itself” is not only a line it’s also true. You can’t just cut them of from all military assistance. So any policy is going to look kind of contradictory.

          All of this isn’t me defending the Biden administration. It’s just me pointing out, that a substantially different policy would look very similar. You would hear a lot of “friends tell friends the truth” and Israel would only get the weapons they actually need to DEFEND itself (iron dome missiles etc.)

          And that’s something they should definitely do

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        16·
        5 months ago

        The thirty-whatever thousand number is direct deaths that can be observed and counted up, I.e. a vast undercount of the actual number.

        The Lancet determined a couple of months ago that you could at that point conservatively estimate about 186,000 dead, 7.9% of the population. Conditions haven’t been improving in the couple months since that happened and it was a conservative estimate anyway, so I said 10%. The truth is there’s a lot of uncertainty, it could be higher or lower than that, but saying it’s 1.5% is definitely wrong.

        • Snowflake@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          5 months ago

          It’s not definitely wrong. It’s the number of verified deaths. Speculation is speculation. Also 186,000 dead would be 4% of the population.

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            15·
            5 months ago

            ?

            Is your impression that the Lancet just has someone speculate on things and then write down whatever, and that’s what they publish? Why would a professionally arrived at and peer reviewed estimate, based on the best available information and with an explanation of where it comes from, not be preferable to the absolute minimum lower bound?

            Why is the number of “verified” deaths relevant? I’m interested in the number of deaths. It’s impossible to know that number for sure, of course, but if you are one of those people that died, but your death wasn’t verified, you’re still dead. Saying that the quite large number of people who died but whose death wasn’t verified “don’t count” or something is obvious nonsense.

            And the Gaza Strip population was 2.23 million in 2023. 186000 / 2230000 = 8%. Where are you getting 4%?

            That’s four specific questions I’m asking.

            • Snowflake@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              5 months ago

              You and Lancet seem to use a “Gaza strip population” to inflate the number and make it look higher than it is. My number comes from the total population of Palestine people of both Gaza and West Bank.

              The number of verified deaths should be relevant. It seems disrespectful not to. Every speculated death should be verified. I’m sure there is a way to verify.

              It is possible for the Lancet to be biased in one way or another yes. It is possible sure. There have been credible orgs who have questioned this Lancet estimate.

              • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                14·
                5 months ago

                Help me out here. If I start bombing Philadelphia, and I kill 10% of the city, is it relevant that Philadelphia is part of the United States and does that make the 10% number suddenly wrong?

                You’re sure there is a way to verify, huh. Well hey, you should go to Gaza and help them verify. I am sure it would be easy once you’re down there, helping them dig out families or schoolrooms from under the rubble and count 1, 2, 3, okay we got 4 corpses in this one. They’re verified now so they count. Boy, only a few hundred thousand houses to go, should be done in no time. Hey guys where is the water fountain? I’m getting thirsty, and when is lunch coming?

                I am mostly done; you don’t need to tell me how biased the Lancet is famous for being, or who are these unnamed orgs who are questioning its credibility.

          • roboto@feddit.orgEnglish
            4·
            5 months ago

            You do not seem to understand how peer review let alone scientific research works and what kind of rigor is required to get your research published in an A* journal and I’ll leave it at that.

            • Snowflake@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              5 months ago

              When journalists and peer-review get a more accurate number of deaths than… The Gaza health ministry ran by the government of Gaza.

              Okay.

              I said it before. Why don’t we just say 500 thousand dead why be so conservative? Why don’t we even say it’s a million dead!

              • roboto@feddit.orgEnglish
                4·
                5 months ago

                Journalists publishing in the lancet and doing peer review? I rest my case.

              • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                4·
                5 months ago

                Because that’s… not the estimate that the most accurate process they can come up with leads to?

                This sorta reminds me of conversations I’ve had with Trump supporters, where the very idea that you could evaluate a source and one could be more believable than another for reasons other than ideology, (like that one is trying to get the truth and one isn’t), is alien to them.

          • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            5 months ago

            I don’t understand why some people think that the death count is 40K. That number was made by the Palestinian health ministry and they are very accurate… but it wasn’t updated because all their facilities have been destroyed. They act like somehow it stopped there just like that.

            The lancet is not fucking around with their numbers.

            • Snowflake@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              5 months ago

              The Palestine health ministry announces an updated death toll nearly everyday. What. Are. You. Talking. About.

  • aramis87@fedia.io
    69·
    5 months ago

    a senior Israeli official [said] that Netanyahu has been feeling more emboldened to strike Iran since Biden’s July 21 decision to drop out of the 2024 US presidential race.

    STOP SENDING ARMS TO ISRAEL! Seriously. If we stopped sending arms today, Israel still has enough ammo to slaughter Palestinians for another 8 months. Stopping arms sales wouldn’t hinder the Israelis’ war, but it might give enough pause to help Palestinian peace.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.worldEnglish
      16·
      5 months ago

      If Netanyahu wants Trump in office there’s not much out there with a higher impact than getting an American Carrier group sucked into a war with Iran and then publicly saying the democrats aren’t willing to really fight. Add in assertions they’re putting Americans in danger without letting them defend themselves…

      Yeah, Biden dropping out was good but it opened the door to some real fuckery because Biden just cannot bring himself to realize the problem in the ME right now is Israel.

      • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.caEnglish
        4·
        5 months ago

        Having the US overthrow yet another government in the ME isn’t going to fix things

        And yes the threat is Israel escalating the war to force the US to help

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          5 months ago

          I can think of one ME government that could use a change of leadership. And it’s also the one we don’t have to attack to change.

          • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.caEnglish
            1·
            5 months ago

            If you’re talking about Israel then that’s what I was addressing

            If you’re talking about Turkey or Egypt then why?

        • RedAggroBest@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          5 months ago

          Well yea, because warfare has been a “man’s game” for well over 2000 years. I heard an interview with an undecided (woman) voter who was concerned that, even if western societies are more equal to women, the leaders from countries that don’t give women rights won’t respect her and the US by extension. When the interviewer asked her about powerful women in other countries like Germany, she said it’s different because “those countries” are smaller than the US.

    • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      5 months ago

      Also it would halt any dreams that Israel has of attacking Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. They would not have the supplies in order to wage a war against people who have actual armies.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    41·
    5 months ago

    Bibi:

    Why? It works every time with no consequences.

    Why anyone would tolerate a guy like this to avoid short-term fallout is a part of politics I can’t understand. It seems to me that a single partner being willing to bite the bullet would defeat him.

    • Gsus4@mander.xyzEnglish
      10·
      5 months ago

      Did you watch the speech at congress? That’s why. I’m not sure Biden ever had those many people in there applauding 40 times. It’s revolting.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        5·
        5 months ago

        I mean, that doesn’t help explain why. I’m not just talking about the Americans either. He’s in a precarious coalition government right now.

        • Gsus4@mander.xyzEnglish
          2·
          5 months ago

          I thought you meant why Biden tolerated him, he’s the one trying to avoid short-term fallout, congress usually does not get blamed for foreign policy…except in Ukraine…actually lots of exceptions :/

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            6·
            5 months ago

            I mean why would anyone tolerate a political actor who’s actively famous for perpetually dicking over people who tolerate him. He does it within Israeli politics too; with the forever war they’re currently in (so he doesn’t have to face an election) being just one example.

  • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    35·
    5 months ago

    China’s final warning == Russia’s final warning == Biden’s final warning.

    The only reason I see to take this even half seriously is because Biden doesn’t have anything left to lose.

  • riodoro1@lemmy.worldEnglish
    25·
    5 months ago

    „Stopping israel from annihilating the Palestinian people is distancing us from a peaceful solution”

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        27·
        5 months ago

        How about, you know, actually let her create and execute foreign policy before you judge her. She’s clearly started distancing herself from Biden’s carte blanche approach, but it’s not a good idea (electorally) to move to fast on that front, because AIPAC throws a LOT of cash around.

        • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          5 months ago

          I deadass told everyone Biden was gonna copycat Obama’s policy because he was a VP with no plan of his own.

          He did exactly that.

          How tf is Kamala going to magically gain a moral conscious overnight, let alone a functioning policy plan that isn’t going to be a copy of Biden.

          Especially considering she was the least popular candidate in 2020.

          30 years of snake oil promises from literally every president and yet people still fall for the ol “let’s give them a chance to prove themselves”

      • mightyfoolish@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        5 months ago

        To be fair, while this may be her likely answer, she hasn’t spoken anything definitive on the issue. There is room for optisism even if it isn’t high.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        5 months ago

        I would argue its the reverse, most the media is a corporate/billionaire owned. Billionaire and corporate media isnt going to act in the public’s best interest.

        • wurzelgummidge@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          5 months ago

          Billionaire and corporate media isnt going to act in the public’s best interest

          I absolutely agree with that. So why do we trust them on anything at all?

          • Fedizen@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            5 months ago

            I do think a lot of well-meaning people go into journalism. It just means there’s some problems to look out for

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        21·
        5 months ago

        Are you trying to tell me “Iran said to dismiss US, Arab calls for restraint — even if it sparks war” and “IDF says slain Al Jazeera reporter was a Hamas commando, took part in Oct. 7 massacre” aren’t fully credible, highly factual, left-center ways of summarizing what’s currently happening in the Middle East?

        • DeceptichumEnglish
          3·
          5 months ago

          Mozz I’m gonna admit I used to dislike you, but seeing you post so valiantly for Palestinians lately has really changed my opinion on you.

      • mwguy@infosec.pubEnglish
        3·
        5 months ago

        The bot is accurate. Most people getting mad at Times of Israel are just getting mad because Jews. It’s nominally accurate, and most of the political scandals of Israel itself are reported there. It’s clearly not propaganda.

        • njm1314@lemmy.worldEnglish
          12·
          5 months ago

          This piece of shit bot rates The Washington Post as a leftist. This thing is beyond crazy. No one with any credibility can defend it.

              • Paddzr@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                5 months ago

                I use grounded as my news source, I never looked too closely… If this is taken from there, I should reavulate my use of the app.

                But hey, downvote away!

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          10·
          5 months ago

          Want to address the current headlines I quoted in my other comment?

          They’ve got a right to express their side of things, of course, but pretending they are “credible” in terms of, you can take credulously the stuff that’s printed there, is absolute hilarilty.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        23·
        5 months ago

        There is a particular type of propaganda account that likes to insert nonsense into the discourse, just to interfere with people who want to have reasonable discussions. This article has more about it – search for Peter Pomerantsev; he’s quoted in that talking about it.

        Of course I’m not saying the person you’re replying to is doing that. I for-real genuinely have no idea whether it’s that, or they’re just a person with some odd ideas about geopolitics, and anyway it would be illegal for me to make that type of speculation.