You are not really looking at the entire picture.
It starts with some people trying to convince Ukraine to distance itself from Russia and become more European friendly. When the elected president decides to stick with Russia, all the sudden he is a crook and needs removed from office.
Except for the minor fact that he was a crook the entire time. If you want to talk about the entire picture.
What about my right to search?
There is no such right, except in your imagination.
Freedom of association.
And quite frankly speaking, for the cases this law is intended for (let's not focus only on the abuses, as most idiot journalists do because it makes for better headlines), the right of an individual to not have their life ruined by, say, completely made-up allegations of child abuse and rape quite clearly trumps your right of finding false and misleading information.
That would be libel, and is adequately covered by existing laws. Excessively covered in the UK.
It doesn't matter if the information is a matter of public record.
Yeah, it kind of does. Striking something from the public record is state-sponsored censorship, and that not only leads to evil, it's an evil in and of itself.
"One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, TWELVE BLADES!"
Immediately followed by "Mixture on, SWITCH ON!"
*pop*pop*poketa*poketa*rrrrumbleprrrrrrrrrrr*
There is no crime in war. War has no law.
Tell that to Peter von Hagenbach, was was convicted and executed for war crimes in 1474 . He even offered the "only following orders" excuse.
Regardless, if you want to morally judge the actions of both sides here, Israel comes out looking far, far worse.
I'm not morally judging actions, I'm legally judging actions. Hamas is deliberately and systematically committing war crimes as defined by international law.
More than 500 Palestinians dead and climbing and you say Israel is trying to minimise casualties? Do you seriously expect people to believe that?
Absolutely, yes. If Israel were actually out to cause casualties, rather than to prevent them, the death toll would be enormous. If they were merely careless of civilian casualties, the death toll would not only be higher, it would be statistically correlated with the demographics of the Palestinian people, with deaths of women, children, and the elderly roughly in proportion to the size of those groups in the general population.
Instead, the Palestinian death statistics are massively skewed towards males aged 18-38. That can't happen if you're killing civilians either deliberately or carelessly. But it's exactly what you'd see if you were carefully targeting enemy combatants.
Israel has never shown themselves to be ready for peaceful coexistence
That is quite simply untrue. Israel has shown that consistently for decades.
Peaceful co-existence doesn't mean there won't be disagreements. Even closely allied nations disagree with one another all the time. It means there won't be war.
I(and neither has Hamas).
That, at least, is true. Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel; it's stated explicitly in their charter.
Of course, if you put an entire people inside an area more akin to the ghetto of Warsaw then a real country. An area with an insanely high population density an almost no way in our out for armed forces of their own the what did you expect really?
I expect Israel would gladly hand the Gaza Strip back to Egypt at this point. It doesn't seem that Egypt wants it back.
The root cause of this mess is that the Palestinians want their land back (after it was bought from them first in the post-WW2 UN partition plan that broke up Palestine into a Palestinian section and a Jewish section and then later further taken by the new state of Israel in various wars)
FTFY
Yes, a very important point.
Actually, the root cause can be traced back another couple of decades, to the various crises in the British Mandate of Palestine following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. You might argue that the British handled things badly, but I'm not that sure that it could have been handled well. By the time World War II was over, there was little that could be done to repair the situation.
If you view either side as clearly in the right, you're a fucking fool.
Israel is clearly in the right.
That doesn't mean that Israel is without fault. Clearly, they're not. But we have one side ready for peaceful coexistence and the other side who wants only the total destruction of their enemies.
The situation is not complicated. That doesn't mean solving it is easy; there are many simple problems that are hard to solve. But we can say for sure that false equivalencies do not help.
They're not at war? Are you high? Hamas has declared war on Israel from day one. At this very moment Israel and Gaza is exchanging rockets missiles and bombs and hundreds of people are being killed every day. If, as you say, "Israel could wipe them out in a matter of days", then do it and get it over with.
Israel are trying to minimise casualties on both sides. Hamas are trying to maximise Israeli casualties, and use Palestinian casualties to their political advantage. It's a perfect example of asymmetrical warfare; the capabilities and aims of the combatants are completely different.
Israel has the military capability to destroy Gaza, just as the US had the military capability to destroy Iraq or Afghanistan back in 2003. But doing so is not in their long-term interests.
Regarding the present situation, Hamas is clearly the aggressor, launching an unprovoked and strategically and tactically useless attack on Israel. Hamas wants Israel destroyed; Israel doesn't want to be destroyed. Not complicated.
The problem is it is not sustainable. Each intercept missile cost $60,000, a rocket launched by hamas costs $800.
Israel's GDP is the equivalent of about US$250 billion. They can easily afford tens of thousands of intercept missiles if it keeps the population safe.
Hamas can DDoS the hell of out Israel.
DDoS attacks generally rely on multiplier effects, getting someone else to do most of the work for you. Botnets, service vulnerabilities like the NTP reflection attack, that sort of thing. Hamas don't appear to have any such advantage.
All they need is decently trained soldiers and decent supply of rockets.
And if they had three fully-equipped tank divisions and a carrier group, that would help too.
If Israel is not willing to do the above, then don't complain when Hamas have to improvise just to have a fighting chance of defending themselves.
Two points: First, their improvisations are war crimes; second, Hamas are the aggressor. This is not particularly complicated.
The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.
