I understand the Israeli sentiment here, but afaik they do not have a legal leverage to force him. They could of course create a new law and enforce it against his companies ( in Israel ) or they can petition him to not allow connections or threaten him if he does.
In any case, Musk/SpaceX are not going to go against Israel, and in this case ultimately against the US government. Note that if Starlink knowingly allowed the service to be used by Hamas (which is defacto the Gazawi government so any terminal in Gaza would be at risk) that would be a serious offence under US law. Obviously he's going to play ball.
> Note that if Starlink knowingly allowed the service to be used by Hamas (which is defacto the Gazawi government so any terminal in Gaza would be at risk) that would be a serious offence under US law.
I don't know if it applies to corporations providing services, but all foreign aid to Israel is illegal in the US, since they are nuclear armed and not party to the non-proliferation treaty.
We have a policy of not acknowledging that they are nuclear armed to avoid this.
Probably not, but Musk has successfully build the reputation of an entity with quite random behaviour.
Any normal person can be put under pressure given that what you threaten them with is more harmful than anything for retaliation they can dream up.
A sufficient erratic person might retaliate despite suffering themselves. If you have little to gain by your threat and more to loose by the counter attack you can be repelled.
That’s how American badgers win confrontations with grizzly bears.
Let’s assume you go to Musk with a file containing some dirt on him, and tell him :” Switch if your satellites over Tuvalu or the world knows”. Is it so hard to believe the reaction to be a tweet saying:
“Was approach by the Antarctican secret service and told to switch of satellites over Tuvalu, will provide internet over Tuvalu for free!”
My guess is that they either buy him, or the US tells him to do what they want lest he loses government contracts.
All in all this is just a prove that each block needs its own starlink clone, the sky will get crowded.
I wonder if they can reach the height of the Starlink's satellites orbit? How many satellites they need to destroy for Starlink - which adds new batches ~weekly and where a loss of a satellite is a standard situation - for that to be important for the system?
Theoretically, of course. I'm pretty sure SpaceX would cooperate with Israel, with mutual benefits.
Ah yeah that kind of "solve": like stopping a burglar in a warehouse full of fireworks using a flamethrower.
Sure, that certainly would solve your burglary problem. But thats what counts right?
Let's not forget the geopolitical neighborhood in which Israel is located. The IDF "solving" the problem in 15 minutes is very likely drawing them into a (very existentially threatening) conflict with the whole region.
And given the fact that roughly a million kids live in Gaza I can only imagine what kind of human it would take to even envision that as "solving" anything.
The truth is that there is no military solution to this conflict.
a disturbingly large amount of Israelis don't see Palestinians as human beings. the only reason they haven't committed their own holocaust is that it would be a PR disaster for them. its a systematic issue created by a strong domination of right wing control. moderate voices and Palestine sympathizers are marginalized in their ability to change anything.
See, this is my problem. It is okay to have hate people who want to kill you. But that 2 year old Palestinian toddler does not want to kill you, it can't barely speak. The ~75% of Palestinians that said they do not trust the Hamas in a representative face-to-face poll weeks before the attack would probably not want to kill you either. Hate becomes a problem once it makes you twist reality to validate and fuel your hate. If you ever have been in a life threatening situation and survived, it was probably because in the right moment you went all calm and controlled and did the right thing. What Israel is currently doing is the opposite of that. The Hamas already had lost in the court of public opinion, the only way to turn that into a Hamas win is to give them the brutal, inhumane retaliation they want. A retaliation that will flame their support and motivate new bystanders. And guess what, they would use the very same argument as you. And just like you they wouldn't be completely wrong either.
This is not speculation, this is guerilla warfare 101.
What should have broader support is not to give emotionally uncontrollable and impulsive men the power to decide about the problems their kids will have to deal with — solutions that won't alleviate the problems, but make them worse. Makes you wonder for whom they are doing this, other than themselves.
The Gaza strip was not a ghetto. Its HDI was higher than many nations, and tt had areas described as wealthy. In recent times, Israel, convinced that Hamas was turning over a new leaf, had been giving concessions, and easing restrictions. One may quibble about the pace of this, but remember, this blockage on Gaza is a directly result of fears of what would happen if they were given free reign.
Now, do you think murdering over a thousand people make it more likely that Israel will relax it restrictions on Gaza? If the objective of Hamas was to get Israel to relax its restrictions on Gaza even more, then their attack does not make sense. But, things make sense if you understand that their objective is not to live peacefully side by side with Israel. This is fundamentally a cultural and ideological conflict. It sounds like the very idea of a non-Arab nation right in the heart of the middle east is anathema to them.
And Hamas is not some alien occupier of Gaza. I have watched this crisis for weeks, and have never come across any Gazan denouncing Hamas. If you have some links to an instance of this, I would like to see it. I have also not heard of any Arab nation denouncing Hamas.
So, if your argument is that Israel do nothing, or only do very specific targeting of known Hamas operatives, then you are arguing that a murderous cult be allowed free reign to operate. Was this not the status quo for all these years? I always heard about various wars and incursions into Gaza.
Don't get me wrong here. What I said is that there are multiple ways in which one can react to this crisis, one of those ways is emotional and automatic. I warned against the fact that this way rarely is the best response long term, especially not in military conflicts. That does not mean that I don't understand the urge to do so.
The systemic dynamic of this conflict is well understood and the fact that Hamas just happens to attack before a major diplomatic breakthrough between Israel and the Saudis is very likely no accident.
On the Gaza strip: Look at a satellite picture of it and remember that there are two million people there, half of which are below 18, of those 74 percent have no job. Roughly half of the population is in poverty. Hamas has been elected with a anti-corruption-agenda in 2014, roughly a decade ago. Our jobless 18 year old was 4 when that happened. You remember who was in power when you where four?
Maybe you don't know but anti-Hamas protests in Gaza are a thing (as one would expect giving the living conditions). They are also brutally beaten down by Hamas as one would equally expect:
Now we are again in a conflict with its own dynamics, where Israel is realiant on international support and Hamas is reliant on building anger in Palestinanand the rest of the arab worls against the Israelis (instead of anger against them for doing a shitty job at governing/treating their citizens bad). If Israel goes in with the flaming sword, they will produce exactly that anger in the rest of the region, which might be even more dangerous than the anger of the Palestinians. If one considers that Hamas has been originally funded by Israel (https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-c...) a good strategy would be to:
- not retaliate harshly, but only in very pointed actions, this way Hamas stays the bad terrorists and Israel retains the international support it needs
- try to flare up resentment of the palestinian population against their betters and avoid things that allow a simple redirection of that anger towards Isreal
- fund existing pro democratic/anti-Hamas movements, help with civil infrastructure, again to guide the resentment at Hamas
- expand the partnership with surrounding arab countries, maybe even bring them on board to help with Gaza as a gesture of good will (this is a stopgap against other arab countries solidarizing with Hamas).
So essentially Israel profits if all arab entities are seperated from Hamas with their own interests, while Hamas profits if it is a simple jews against arabs-conflict.
Now the problem with all of these is, that to a understandably traumatized Israeli public that proposal must feel downright absurd and any government that had to implement it might not survive the next election. (My guess is that a part of military Israel understands basic gametheory dynamic as well, which is why we don't have stronger action).
Words matter, and I see a lot of hyperbole in this issue. You really think Israelis would want to go pick up all Palestinians and put them in gas chambers?
Comparing the current situation to the holocaust is frankly disturbing. If any holocaust there would be, it is more likely to come from Hamas and their ilk, who have made no secret of their intentions on Israelis if given the chance.
Any links to this? And any demonstrations of this in actual attempted actions?
So they want to put down all those in Gaza and the West bank? Through what means, shooting them at point blank range, bombing, or what? And what has stopped them from doing so thus far?
The amount of seemingly unreasoning statements put out about this whole situation does not cease to amaze me.
Settlers attacking people is not a genocide, any more than KKK attacks on black people was a genocide. And by the way, the attacks are not one-sided, although the media likes to portray it that way. Settlers are also routinely attacked by Palestinians.
Likud members are referring to Hamas, not Palestinians as a whole, and their statements have to be put in context.
And what do you think Palestinians think of Israelis, that they are human? Actions speak louder here, and the only side that is happy to engage in a free for all killing of the other side is Hamas and their ilk.
if a palestinian kills a settler, even in self defense, they get arrested and never see the light of day again. when a settler kills a palestinian, the very same IDR sweeps it under the rug.
I agree that the actions of an individual does not constitute. genocide. but the consequences enacted at the systematic level certainly do
Settlers are (supposedly) routinely attacked because they are stealing land and displacing Palestinians. Funny how that works huh?
Also I said ethnic cleansing. Not genocide. If the KKK was armed by the government and stealing black family’s homes with full support of the police and occupying military that would also be ethnic cleansing. And guess what, that is what is and has been happening with full support from zionists like Ben Gvir.
Likud members are referring to all Palestinians. If we are gonna start bringing up context, then you can’t say Hamas wants to murder all Jews. In context they want to remove zionists from their land that was stolen from them. They aren’t monsters, merely people fighting oppression.
Funny how we need to have nuance in understanding zionists calling Palestinians animals to be eliminated, but you then go on to blanket the entire Palestinians population as bloodthirsty murderers.
Also the only side that is happy to free for all killing is Israel. Look how many they killed on the 7th, how many they killed in the bombing, and how happy they were to heavily bomb areas they knew hostages could/would be in.
Your rhetoric doesn’t match reality, sorry. And it’s pretty clear you have no intention of engaging this topic in good faith. Have fun repeating hasbara talking points.
Taking down starlink is more or less impossible, it’s too many satellites and anti satellite weaponry is more expensive than starlink satellites. Even the Russians could not take starlink down.
Of course they could threaten him personally but I doubt that this would be well received internationally and Israel needs allies.
Israel is a war with Gaza. They can jam his satellites if they are communicating with receivers in Gaza and put Musk and his companies on their naughty list.
At least according to the UN human rights, this is effectively a human rights violation.
> While blocking and filtering measures deny users access to specific content on the Internet, States have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely. The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [1]
They have no business justification etc for blocking starlink. I know Elon can't/won't go against it, and I know the UN is effectively a dog without teeth, but I'm surprised more human rights activists (and people who support the open internet) aren't angrier.
Starlink facilitates internet access. Thus by blocking their operation they violating Palestinian human rights and engaging in collective punishment an aggravated violation of human rights.
The way I interpret the current situation since October 7th: Israel is disrupting enemy communications capabilities during warfare triggered by an invasion of its territory and murder of civilians.
Seems perfectly within the accepted laws of war to me.
Now, specifically re. Starlink: They do not even offer service in Gaza (or Israel?) at the moment so I don't see how asking them not to start without specific approval could be deemed anything other than business as usual.
If you spray a crowd of people with bullets to get one criminal you get collateral damage. This is the same exact thing but with internet. The ends do not justify the means and anyone who thinks they do are wrong and will hopefully end up in shackles in The Hague. This is not even a war, Palestine is a free range concentration camp. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia is a war as evidenced by the fact that Ukraine is not reliant on their aggressors consent to access life’s necessities. Do you see the difference?
Just because Palestine is weak doesn't mean this conflict isn't a war. You usually don't see wars like this because generally governments know better than to attack states far more powerful than them.
> The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
> Seems perfectly within the accepted laws of war to me
I don’t think you know the laws of war at all if you think the actions of Israel before or after October 7th fall within them.
Just a very small example:
> To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.
What if I tell your water provider, they can't serve you anymore, and they're yor only viable water provider?
Oh no sorry, I'm not denying you access to water, just access to your only source of water. And my only issue is they were providing water to you. They can keep operating everywhere else.
All of this "internet as a right" is honestly just arbitrary opining. Laws have violations, opinions don't. One has teeth, the other doesn't and can be ignored. Hell, even ignore my opinion on this matter :)
> The Council's Membership is based on equitable geographical distribution.
Seats are distributed as follows:
> African States: 13 seats
> Asia-Pacific States: 13 seats
> Latin American and Caribbean States: 8 seats
> Western European and other States: 7 seats
> Eastern European States: 6 seats
> [...]
> Human Rights Council membership around the world
>
> By 31 December 2022, 123 UN member states will have served as Human Rights Council Members, reflecting the UN’s diversity and giving the Council legitimacy when speaking out on human rights violations in all countries:
>
> - African states: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana,Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia.
>
> - Asia-Pacific States: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam.
>
> - Latin America & Caribbean States: Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of).
>
> - Western European & others States: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.
>
> - Eastern European States: Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czechia, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine.
Holding babies hostage and torturing them is a human rights violation.
It's beyond shocking that there is even a discussion about using the internet in Gaza. Using cellphones to post your atrocities on TikTok, eh?
Israel should bring it back to the Stone Age at least until the war is over.
The next step for Israel is to require all aliens to send any signals to Gaza only with its approval. All stars should send neutrino and other particles only with its approval.
If Gaza isn't able to even do ethereal things without Israel's regulation then so much for the two states with self determination explanation.
Personally, I think a forced elimination of the two state solution would be good. The more liberal elements of each society need to realize self determined religious demographic adjusted states are actually the enemy of their own self determination. Without a religious stalemate a more pious than thou ratcheting to a fundamentalist state gradually occurs.
58 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] threadIn any case, Musk/SpaceX are not going to go against Israel, and in this case ultimately against the US government. Note that if Starlink knowingly allowed the service to be used by Hamas (which is defacto the Gazawi government so any terminal in Gaza would be at risk) that would be a serious offence under US law. Obviously he's going to play ball.
I don't know if it applies to corporations providing services, but all foreign aid to Israel is illegal in the US, since they are nuclear armed and not party to the non-proliferation treaty.
We have a policy of not acknowledging that they are nuclear armed to avoid this.
You can't seriously be suggesting any country would shoot down satellites?
That would be far worse than cutting undersea data cables, which they also would never do.
And it would be obvious who did it and break a lot more treaties.
You might as well suggest they'd send a missile to Elon's house.
Any normal person can be put under pressure given that what you threaten them with is more harmful than anything for retaliation they can dream up.
A sufficient erratic person might retaliate despite suffering themselves. If you have little to gain by your threat and more to loose by the counter attack you can be repelled.
That’s how American badgers win confrontations with grizzly bears.
Let’s assume you go to Musk with a file containing some dirt on him, and tell him :” Switch if your satellites over Tuvalu or the world knows”. Is it so hard to believe the reaction to be a tweet saying:
“Was approach by the Antarctican secret service and told to switch of satellites over Tuvalu, will provide internet over Tuvalu for free!”
My guess is that they either buy him, or the US tells him to do what they want lest he loses government contracts.
All in all this is just a prove that each block needs its own starlink clone, the sky will get crowded.
I wonder if they can reach the height of the Starlink's satellites orbit? How many satellites they need to destroy for Starlink - which adds new batches ~weekly and where a loss of a satellite is a standard situation - for that to be important for the system?
Theoretically, of course. I'm pretty sure SpaceX would cooperate with Israel, with mutual benefits.
Sure, that certainly would solve your burglary problem. But thats what counts right?
Let's not forget the geopolitical neighborhood in which Israel is located. The IDF "solving" the problem in 15 minutes is very likely drawing them into a (very existentially threatening) conflict with the whole region.
And given the fact that roughly a million kids live in Gaza I can only imagine what kind of human it would take to even envision that as "solving" anything.
The truth is that there is no military solution to this conflict.
This is not speculation, this is guerilla warfare 101.
What should have broader support is not to give emotionally uncontrollable and impulsive men the power to decide about the problems their kids will have to deal with — solutions that won't alleviate the problems, but make them worse. Makes you wonder for whom they are doing this, other than themselves.
The Gaza strip was not a ghetto. Its HDI was higher than many nations, and tt had areas described as wealthy. In recent times, Israel, convinced that Hamas was turning over a new leaf, had been giving concessions, and easing restrictions. One may quibble about the pace of this, but remember, this blockage on Gaza is a directly result of fears of what would happen if they were given free reign.
Now, do you think murdering over a thousand people make it more likely that Israel will relax it restrictions on Gaza? If the objective of Hamas was to get Israel to relax its restrictions on Gaza even more, then their attack does not make sense. But, things make sense if you understand that their objective is not to live peacefully side by side with Israel. This is fundamentally a cultural and ideological conflict. It sounds like the very idea of a non-Arab nation right in the heart of the middle east is anathema to them.
And Hamas is not some alien occupier of Gaza. I have watched this crisis for weeks, and have never come across any Gazan denouncing Hamas. If you have some links to an instance of this, I would like to see it. I have also not heard of any Arab nation denouncing Hamas.
So, if your argument is that Israel do nothing, or only do very specific targeting of known Hamas operatives, then you are arguing that a murderous cult be allowed free reign to operate. Was this not the status quo for all these years? I always heard about various wars and incursions into Gaza.
If not, waht would you have Israel do?
The systemic dynamic of this conflict is well understood and the fact that Hamas just happens to attack before a major diplomatic breakthrough between Israel and the Saudis is very likely no accident.
On the Gaza strip: Look at a satellite picture of it and remember that there are two million people there, half of which are below 18, of those 74 percent have no job. Roughly half of the population is in poverty. Hamas has been elected with a anti-corruption-agenda in 2014, roughly a decade ago. Our jobless 18 year old was 4 when that happened. You remember who was in power when you where four?
Maybe you don't know but anti-Hamas protests in Gaza are a thing (as one would expect giving the living conditions). They are also brutally beaten down by Hamas as one would equally expect:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/protests-against-hamas-reemerg...
https://apnews.com/article/gaza-hamas-demonstration-israel-b...
Now we are again in a conflict with its own dynamics, where Israel is realiant on international support and Hamas is reliant on building anger in Palestinanand the rest of the arab worls against the Israelis (instead of anger against them for doing a shitty job at governing/treating their citizens bad). If Israel goes in with the flaming sword, they will produce exactly that anger in the rest of the region, which might be even more dangerous than the anger of the Palestinians. If one considers that Hamas has been originally funded by Israel (https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-c...) a good strategy would be to:
- not retaliate harshly, but only in very pointed actions, this way Hamas stays the bad terrorists and Israel retains the international support it needs
- try to flare up resentment of the palestinian population against their betters and avoid things that allow a simple redirection of that anger towards Isreal
- fund existing pro democratic/anti-Hamas movements, help with civil infrastructure, again to guide the resentment at Hamas
- expand the partnership with surrounding arab countries, maybe even bring them on board to help with Gaza as a gesture of good will (this is a stopgap against other arab countries solidarizing with Hamas).
So essentially Israel profits if all arab entities are seperated from Hamas with their own interests, while Hamas profits if it is a simple jews against arabs-conflict.
Now the problem with all of these is, that to a understandably traumatized Israeli public that proposal must feel downright absurd and any government that had to implement it might not survive the next election. (My guess is that a part of military Israel understands basic gametheory dynamic as well, which is why we don't have stronger action).
Comparing the current situation to the holocaust is frankly disturbing. If any holocaust there would be, it is more likely to come from Hamas and their ilk, who have made no secret of their intentions on Israelis if given the chance.
So they want to put down all those in Gaza and the West bank? Through what means, shooting them at point blank range, bombing, or what? And what has stopped them from doing so thus far?
The amount of seemingly unreasoning statements put out about this whole situation does not cease to amaze me.
Likud members using the language of genocide: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/16/the-la...
You can google the rest, ‘Likud genocide language’ comes up with plenty of examples.
The means they are using are right in front of your eyes. Forcing them from their lands, murdering civilians, killing entire families.
I think a better question is what would Israel have to do for you to accept they regard Palestinians as animals. Was all that not enough?
Likud members are referring to Hamas, not Palestinians as a whole, and their statements have to be put in context.
And what do you think Palestinians think of Israelis, that they are human? Actions speak louder here, and the only side that is happy to engage in a free for all killing of the other side is Hamas and their ilk.
I agree that the actions of an individual does not constitute. genocide. but the consequences enacted at the systematic level certainly do
Also I said ethnic cleansing. Not genocide. If the KKK was armed by the government and stealing black family’s homes with full support of the police and occupying military that would also be ethnic cleansing. And guess what, that is what is and has been happening with full support from zionists like Ben Gvir.
Likud members are referring to all Palestinians. If we are gonna start bringing up context, then you can’t say Hamas wants to murder all Jews. In context they want to remove zionists from their land that was stolen from them. They aren’t monsters, merely people fighting oppression.
Funny how we need to have nuance in understanding zionists calling Palestinians animals to be eliminated, but you then go on to blanket the entire Palestinians population as bloodthirsty murderers.
Also the only side that is happy to free for all killing is Israel. Look how many they killed on the 7th, how many they killed in the bombing, and how happy they were to heavily bomb areas they knew hostages could/would be in.
Your rhetoric doesn’t match reality, sorry. And it’s pretty clear you have no intention of engaging this topic in good faith. Have fun repeating hasbara talking points.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-ministers-...
His caveat was that individuals (settlers?) should not so it, but the state Israel.
If this is sayable in official capacity one wonders how bad it is at the ground.
Of course they could threaten him personally but I doubt that this would be well received internationally and Israel needs allies.
> While blocking and filtering measures deny users access to specific content on the Internet, States have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely. The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [1]
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access#:~:...
They have no business justification etc for blocking starlink. I know Elon can't/won't go against it, and I know the UN is effectively a dog without teeth, but I'm surprised more human rights activists (and people who support the open internet) aren't angrier.
Seems perfectly within the accepted laws of war to me.
Now, specifically re. Starlink: They do not even offer service in Gaza (or Israel?) at the moment so I don't see how asking them not to start without specific approval could be deemed anything other than business as usual.
http://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality
I don’t think you know the laws of war at all if you think the actions of Israel before or after October 7th fall within them.
Just a very small example:
> To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/03/middleeast/casualties-gazas-s...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/23/israels-army-a...
What if I tell your water provider, they can't serve you anymore, and they're yor only viable water provider?
Oh no sorry, I'm not denying you access to water, just access to your only source of water. And my only issue is they were providing water to you. They can keep operating everywhere else.
See the difference?
Sounds like just their opinion, man.
All of this "internet as a right" is honestly just arbitrary opining. Laws have violations, opinions don't. One has teeth, the other doesn't and can be ignored. Hell, even ignore my opinion on this matter :)
But also, since when has Israel cared about violating human rights in occupied territories?
UN exists as the forum for discussing in order to prevent WW3. That's why countries with the ability to destroy the world have veto power.
People just make it out to be more than it actually is.
As an example, UN's human right council composition (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and etc.) is a huge joke.
> The Council's Membership is based on equitable geographical distribution. Seats are distributed as follows:
> African States: 13 seats
> Asia-Pacific States: 13 seats
> Latin American and Caribbean States: 8 seats
> Western European and other States: 7 seats
> Eastern European States: 6 seats
> [...]
> Human Rights Council membership around the world
>
> By 31 December 2022, 123 UN member states will have served as Human Rights Council Members, reflecting the UN’s diversity and giving the Council legitimacy when speaking out on human rights violations in all countries:
>
> - African states: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana,Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia.
>
> - Asia-Pacific States: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam.
>
> - Latin America & Caribbean States: Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of).
>
> - Western European & others States: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.
>
> - Eastern European States: Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czechia, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/membership
its much worse.
"UNRWA Educators Are Linked To Antisemitism And Support For Terrorism" https://www.blackburn.senate.gov/2023/11/icymi-un-watch-fact...
UN Teachers Call To Murder Jews https://unwatch.org/un-teachers-call-to-murder-jews-reveals-...
It's beyond shocking that there is even a discussion about using the internet in Gaza. Using cellphones to post your atrocities on TikTok, eh? Israel should bring it back to the Stone Age at least until the war is over.
The real issue is whether Israel can get its backers in the US political and financial establishment to sanction Starlink and Musk.
That will be a test of the power of the Israel lobby in the US.
Personally, I think a forced elimination of the two state solution would be good. The more liberal elements of each society need to realize self determined religious demographic adjusted states are actually the enemy of their own self determination. Without a religious stalemate a more pious than thou ratcheting to a fundamentalist state gradually occurs.