And those Hezbollah operatives can lose their pagers

And you can lose your car keys. But if someone asked you where they were, you wouldn’t say “Oh, they’re in a random place”.

or they themselves can move randomly through populated areas with the hidden bomb strapped to their hip

The explosive charge was small enough to seriously harm only those who are in direct contact with it. There’s a video of one charge going off in the middle of grocery shopping (speaking of your next point) with a person standing maybe 20 cm next to the explosion. That person was able to run away without apparent harm.

They never go to buy groceries, or stop at a hospital or school, or have their devices stolen or lost in some random location

There’s no method of warfare that would never harm civilians.

a manner that has absolutely no mechanism by which to control where they actually are and who else is in proximity to them when detonated.

The pagers being bought by Hezbollah is the mechanism. Did you mean a real-time mechanism? Is this what it boils down to? Edit: Sorry, I misread what you said. Changing my reply to: As you can see from the video, where they are and who is next to them isn’t really a factor. I would agree that if they are in very close proximity to another person (hugging them of maybe riding in a crowded public transport), the explosion will probably harm the other person. Once again, relative to other methods aimed against targets operating among civilian population, this seems more selective, not less.

No one is forcing to to reply. I’m continuing it because to me the operation was extremely selective in which people it targets relative to modern warfare among civilian infrastructure, and I’m trying to understand the counter argument.

I did

OK, it took me a while to understand this, and I’m assuming you meant “I do have some criteria”. If you meant something else, I can’t even guess what it was.

after the bit you cherrypicked.

Ah, my bad. I mistook the “pagers that will randomly move around a populated area” part as a purely rhetorical statement and my brain kinda swept it aside. Sorry. The explosives weren’t planted in a random batch of pagers. It was in a batch specifically meant for Hezbollah operatives. You could make the argument that some of the pagers got into non-Hezbollah hands (and obviously they did), but what you said is a gross and unfair exaggeration. Your criteria doesn’t apply here.

I don’t care in the least if anyone thinks I’m in cahoots with anyone; it won’t change that I’m in cahoots with no one.

Sorry, I was trying to say - Please don’t imply I might be willingly misunderstanding you when you’re not communicating clearly. Even your edit is somewhat unclear, as it isn’t evident if the part before the edit is still relevant.

how absolutely heartless and tragic […]

Wait, what? The prevalent criticism against the exploding pagers (both on Lemmy and other places) is that they’re akin to mines and are essentially terrorist attacks. Both of these thing are (at least somewhat) specific and objective, and that’s where we started the conversation. Going from that to “It’s heartless”, which is a very subjective description, seems to me like moving the goalpost.

Yes, of course it’s heartless and tragic. War is heartless and tragic. How else would you describe taking a kid who was in high school a few months ago, putting a rifle in his hand and telling him “See that other kid who’s just like you? go shoot him because he happen to be living on the other side of an imaginary line”?

Saying “Well, this heartless and tragic thing is acceptable but I don’t like that heartless and tragic thing” is arbitrary unless there’s an actual criteria. Either way you’re entitled to your own opinion, it’s just that earlier I thought you have some criteria or test.

You: So the pagers were ordered by Hezbollah…

Me: “The pagers were used by Hezbollah, not Hamas.”

You: “I realize that, I was drawing a parallel between the two circumstances.”

Me: asking for clarification.

You: “you seem not to (or have chosen not to) understand [the parallel?] the first two times […] Edite: I see I typed Hamas when I meant to type Hezbollah in one place”

It seems you’ve mistyped, then misunderstood me when I fixed it (though I attributed it to a lack of knowledge) and now you’re insinuating I might be misunderstanding you willfully? If that’s the case, you’re making it so easy for me other people might think we’re in cahoots[1].

Anyway, Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I didn’t understand the argument. And I’m pretty sure I did understand at least one of your points. I’ve explained why the pagers aren’t like landmines and why the rational behind the treaty to ban landmines seems to agree with me. If that’s the only argument you made (“It’s been one argument the entire time”), you can simply reply to what I said instead of reframing anything.

[1] Speaking of other people, are people downvoting me as a dislike button, or is there a specific reason? I don’t mind the downvotes, just wondering if they’re because people don’t agree with me or because they think there’s something wrong/harmful with my messages.

I realize that, I was drawing a parallel between the two circumstances.

Err… what circumstances? What was the purpose of drawing a parallel between Hamas and Hezbollah? What insight was I to gain by it? Asking seriously.

And again - when you drop a bomb, you can credibly have made an attempt to ensure no one is in the vicinity who you don’t intend to bomb. (Not that israel seems to do this) - this is especially true with modern technology.

Sorry, were you making two arguments or one? You asked about the difference between landmines and what Israel did. I thought the rest of what you said was to show how planting bombs in pagers is like landmines, not a new argument. If there were two arguments, you didn’t respond to my answer regarding landmines.

I can talk about the difference, and you’ll respond with a counter argument etc. Ultimately, it’ll come down to me saying Israel is able to reasonably predict who’ll carry the explosive and you saying they can’t. The bottom line for me is this:

Some weapons have been banned from warfare while others haven’t. The banned weapons follow certain criteria for being banned. exploda-pagers don’t follow the criteria under which landmines have been banned. If you know of other weapons or tactics that are banned and are akin to exploda-pagers, we can discuss that. Otherwise, I’m left with the conclusion what Israel did falls within the bounds of a legitimate military operation. You can, of course, think differently.

The pagers were used by Hezbollah, not Hamas. They are two different entities, and while it doesn’t make any difference in the narrow context I’m replying to, it’s really a basic detail that anyone voicing an opinion on the matter should know.

How is this argument different than defending the use of landmines?

From the Wikipedia entry about landmines: “The use of land mines is controversial because they are indiscriminate weapons, harming soldier and civilian alike. They remain dangerous after the conflict in which they were deployed has ended, killing and injuring civilians and rendering land impassable and unusable for decades. To make matters worse, many factions have not kept accurate records (or any at all) of the exact locations of their minefields, making removal efforts painstakingly slow.”

Planting bombs inside pagers specifically used by Hezbollah isn’t indiscriminate (unless by “indiscriminate” you mean “when they go off, they harm anyone in the proximity”, but going by that definition everything with an exploding charge is “indiscriminate”, yet only mines are banned). And obviously exploded bombs don’t remain dangerous and aren’t difficult to remove.

First off, I think we should contextualize what happened - according to some news sources, the bombs were supposed to go off in the first days of an Israeli attack that would probably start an all out war (Some Hezbollah operatives became suspicious). The operation wasn’t intended to create an “escalation where Hezbollah will answer”, rather opening a full out attack against Hezbollah to force them to stop firing missiles at Israeli civilians and abide by the UN resolution.

Israel didn’t send “thousands of bombs God knows where they land”. They planted bombs in hardware that is used exclusively by Hezbollah operatives and their accomplices to evade gathering sigint. Yes, civilians got hurt. That’s the nature of war, and what makes it so horrible - people who might hold no malice nor pose any threat to the other side get hurt and die. The modern rules of warfare aren’t designed to eliminate civilian casualties, rather mainly to deter the warring parties from using civilians as a tool of war. That’s why an army can’t hide behind civilian population, but given an army that’s hiding behind civilian population, it’s acceptable for the other army to fire at them as long as they take proper measures to minimize civilian casualties (this in meant only as an example, not directly relating to Hezbollah or Hamas). If any act that results in civilian casualties is not “proper defense” I don’t think there has been a single case of “proper defense” in large scale armed conflict in modern history. People in the west might not realize it because for the last decades wars are fought away form their boarders, so it’s easier to view civilian casualties as optional.

And you know what? I’d WISH all civilian casualties in war would be confined to people who are in direct proximity to enemy personnel. If I could press a button and replace all Hezbollah attacks against civilian targets with bombs sent to IDF personnel, I’d do so in a heartbeat.

Regarding Netanyahu - right now, he’s slowly climbing in the polls. His plan is to keep his coalition from falling apart till the next election. Anything that disturbs the current situation is not in his interests (and, on the whole, the last time Netanyahu was proactive in anything other than a political capacity was about 2 decades ago). If Netanyahu wanted a war, he would have the public’s support for it months ago (in fact, the public very much supports a large scale conflict in order to stop Hezbollah targeting Israeli cities). His hand is being forced by other parties in the coalition. The obvious “culprit” are the far-right parties, but I personally think the main catalyst are the ultra-orthodox parties. This gets a bit complicated, but bear with me: The ultra-orthodox parties need to pass a law that’ll exempt their constituents from military service (long story short - they were exempt for years but due to court rulings, need a new law to keep that privilege). Galant (the minister of defense) is the one stopping the law from passing. Netanyahu was about to replace him and sell it to the public as Galant being the one who was against a war against Hezbollah. Actually, I’ll go as far as saying Israel being forced to activate the bombs prematurely, thus stopping Galant from being fired, makes  a war a bit less likely (Though obviously other factors have also been put in play, so the government can’t just do a U turn).

During the last month there were not 1, not 10, not 100 but 807 alerts in Israel for missile attacks. Some of them weren’t fired by Hezbollah, and some might have been the same alert in different areas, but that’s still about 7 missile PER DAY even if we assume only 1 in 4 alerts was due to an attack by Hezbollah (side note: during the entire war, about 2,000 missile were launched from Lebanon to Israel, that’s an average of about 6 per day). In addition to this, there were 452 aircraft intrusion alerts. Most of these attacks are against civilian targets.

Right now, there are about 79 thousand people (around 0.8% of total population) who are still evicted for nearly a year from northern Israel.

And just in case it needs to be said - the first attack was made by Hezbollah (on Oct. 8th) and without any provocation by Israel.

Not only is this a situation no sovereign country can stand, but it’s also a violation of the Lebanon-approved UN Security Council’s resolution 1701, that was the basis for ending the 2006 Lebanon War. Hell, just having missiles in the area is by itself a violation of the resolution.

Regarding political reasoning - A war in Lebanon is actually bad for Netanyahu. His interest is a slow-burning war so he can prolong the current situation as much as possible (once the war is over, the pubic will demand an election). In fact, that’s probably the main reason you had “a missile here and a bomb there” and not an actual war.

No no, they meant first of many unfulfilled promises.

Every day until the Pandemic.

Cool, good for you (seriously). Do you honestly think they’ll say they’re against the freedom of the individual, or is it that you think they’re against it? Not saying you’re right or wrong, just asking if you’re describing what you think they’ll say, their own beliefs or the beliefs/consequences of their party. It’s an important distinction, especially when trying to engage in dialogue with them.

I’m just looking at what I’ve spent the past several months witnessing via news reporting and video clips.

Maybe I don’t follow enough news outside of Israel, but I do read quite a bit and there wasn’t anything about Zionism. Could you maybe link to one or two sources?

I’m not debating what the dictionary says about it.

I’m actually not debating at all, right now I’m trying to understand you, and I’m having some difficulties. My best guess is, you seem to have issues against the Israeli army and government (me too, btw), and somehow decided that’s Zionism. Zionism is more than a century old, and there are plenty of people who call themselves Zionists, yet don’t support all the IDF and the Israeli government did during the past few months (you’re talking to one right now, and Biden is another example). Do you think these people are wrong in what their opinions are? That they’re lying? That they’re not using the correct word, even though that’s the same usage as in the dictionary?

I don’t think they say this much anymore since all Republican policies are explicitly about restricting the will of their fellow citizens.

Thant’s not really the point, though it does kinda feed into a general issue with the way both out countries (assuming you’re from the US) are divided - When was the last time you had an actual talk with a republican in order to understand what he/she thinks?

I never used it this way or considered it this way until the past few months. 🤔 Now you’d have a hard time convincing me that it’s not what it means.

Err… that’s just the definition of the word? You can look it up on any dictionary.

We could talk about the current government, it’s policy or the opinion of Israelis but saying the entire concept of Zionism equals support for Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza is not only factually wrong, it collapses the Israel-Palestine issue into a winner-take-all situation, where both sides are encouraged to beat each other in the hopes one of them will give up before both are dead.

I’m from Israel, and no one is using “Zionism” in the second meaning.

Zionism is, by definition, support for Israel as a Jewish state.

There are those who say “real Zionism” is supporting settlements in Gaza and the west bank, but there are also those who say “real Zionism” is an Israeli state existing alongside a Palestinian state. That’s like a US democrat saying a “true patriot” would support supplying a social safety net for the well-being of all citizens, while a US republican would say a “true patriot” would support a small government that doesn’t restrict the will of all citizens.

Personally, I feel that referring to Zionism in general as support for Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza started as a (partially successful) tactic to de-legitimize the existence of Israel. Not saying everyone who uses the term incorrectly is an antisemitic or whatever, but that’s basically where it came from.

Small children (under 6-7) are exempt from Jewish law. Making breast milk kosher isn’t exactly neccsery, but it makes things much easier (how to keep it, making sure it won’t get mixed with other foods by mistake, what happened if it does etc.) The neat part is that breast milk isn’t considered milk accordingly to Jewish law, so it can be drunk with/right after/before eating meat (otherwise forbidden). This means a person can, and I know at least one who actually did, add breast milk to their coffee after eating meat.

“Conservatives” is a misnomer here. “Conservative” isn’t right and “Progressive” isn’t left.

Conservatives are those who want as little change as possible so as to “not rock the boat” and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Progressives are those who want to try out new policies.

From what I gather, a large portion of today’s Republicans aren’t actually conservatives rather regressive. That’s almost literally what “make America great again” means. That’s also the meaning of, for example, the Roe v. Wade overruling - going back to an earlier state.

Also, in the long run the human condition generally changes for the better (Or at least that’s what we perceive as our values and habits are usually aligned with what we have now and not what we had before). As the status quo changes, the things conservatives (and progressives) value change accordingly.

Saying “Conservatives were the people who defended King George.” as if that has anything to do with conservative today is like someone saying “Progressives on the 18th century were for women’s suffrage, they have no business talking about equality”.

I think we’re on two different wavelengths.

Put stuff in: Stand next to closed car with no free hands, could use automatically opening doors.

Take stuff out: Open car. Pick up stuff out of the car. Stand next to open car with no free hands, could use automatically closing doors.

Because taking stuff out is like putting stuff in, only in the reverse order.

Maybe that’s my bias, but that seems to be a very… specific way of sorting sides. Mind if I rephrase that?

• Pro Israeli side, which includes people who care that the hostages be saved. Some also want a 2 state solutions implemented.
• Pro Israeli control of Palestinians side: people that believe any Palestinian autonomy will result in a repeat of the Oct. 7th massacre, partly because of the, well, Oct. 7th massacre.
• Pro Palestinian side, which includes people who believe Israel should be destroyed and Jews killed, as well as people who maybe don’t want want Jews killed but care that Israel is defeated and/or Palestinians are not bombed.

I’d say both phrasings are about equally accurate and objective.

The visuals were great, and the film has a hypnotic fever dream feel to it. Not sure it can be called a"good" film, but it’s extremy entertaining.

The new film has more gravitas and is much more loyal to the book, but it also doesn’t add anything to the book and is just less interesting to watch (for me it was down right boring). I think it over-corrected the Lynch version.

What do you mean by “comedy impersonation” - parody, or just copying a comedian?

If I were to set up a music show with a Madonna impersonator and slightly changed Madonna songs (or songs in her style), I’ll get my pants sued off.

If Al Yankovic does a parody of a Madonna song, he’s in the clear (He does ask for permission, but that’s a courtesy and isn’t legally mandatory).

The legal term is “transformative use”. Parody, like where SNL has Alec Baldwin impersonating Trump, is a recognized type of transformative use. Baldwin doesn’t straight up impersonate Trump, he does so in a comedic fashion (The impersonation itself is funny, regardless of how funny Trump is). The same logic applied when parodying or impersonating a comedian.

On the other hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecr27Q_L9l8