This is aid through the Karem Shalom border crossing, which is at the border of Gaza, Egypt, and Israel. Egypt does not, and never has, controlled this crossing. The checkpoint into Gaza is on the Israeli side of the Egypt/Israel border and has always been administered by Israel.
Egypt, of course, controls its borders, and so is able to prevent aid from reaching the crossing through Egypt. However, Egypt has no control over aid that reaches the crossing through Israel.
This is in contrast to the Rafah crossing, which is entirely on the Egypt/Gaza border, and so would require Egypt's cooperation to open. That crossing remains closed.
It is good that Egypt is allowing aid to Karem Shalom; and their refusal to allow it through the Rafah crossing would be a warcrime but for the technicality that they are not a party to the war.
However, the same benefit to this move could be accomplished by passing aid through Israel. Israel is a party to this war, and so is under a legal requirement to allow aid in. US law also requires that Israel do so in order to receive military assistance [0]. Further, Israel is under specific instructions from the ICJ to allow in humanitarian aid. And Israeli leadership is likely to be issued a warrent by the ICC for (among other things) blocking tge delivery of humanitarian aide.
Israel requirement to allow humanitarian aide to Gaza through Israel is not some new concept. Nor is it asking for some unheard of generousity from the Israeli people to their enemy. It is simply their longstanding obligation for waging a war in compliance witg international law. An obligation they claim (externally at least) that they are meeting. So, Egypts assistance should be completely irrelevant to the Karem Shalom crossing.
The reason we need Egypt here is that Israel is not complying with its obligations. Part of the difficulty is a minority of Israeli citizens taking matters into their own hands. To the Israeli government's credit, they are providing some security to protect aid deliveries from Israeli protesters.
Seriously, what is the appropriate way for the world to respond to Israel?
Grassroots economic protest (bds) is literally illegal in parts of the US.
Any move in the UN security council is met with a US veto.
An ICJ investigation application is met with condemnation.
An ICC warrent application is met with not only condemnation, but a reiteration of the standing US threat to invade the Hague, or otherwise use "any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court" [0]. Also the mere issuing of a warrent that will likely never be excersized is already being met with the threat of sanctions.
Is there anything that the US thinks is an appropriate way of opposing Israel?
Yes! After Israel engaged in a clear act of war against Iran and Syria by bombing high ranking Iranian military officials in Syria [1], Iran launched an innefective pro-forma counter attack. The US was very clear on our position. No US military support for an Israeli reprisal. Israel shoul just "take the win" and call it a day.
In Ukraine, a country facing a much more existential threat than Israel [2], the US's position has been very clear: "no using US resources to strike within thrme borders of your attacker".
For all of its rhetoric, the actual position of the US and Israel is clear. The only form of opposition to Israeli action that they will respect is the threat of military violence. [3].
Hopefully the rules based order has enough support to stand up against the US opposition. But it is really not good that that is the conversation we are having.
[1] The details of this strike are arguably a war crime. However weather you agree with that assessment or not, launching a missile into another country and killing military leaders is about as classic "act of war" as you can get.
[2] This is not a statement on the morals or goals of Russia compared with Gaza. Simply a statement of their military capabilities and ability to see those goals to fruition.
[3] Of course, following through on such a threat would be met with an in-kind response, but neither the US nor Israel seem to want to be fighting a capable enemy right now.
That's the point. For all of the US's talk about a "rules based order", it is very selective about how it gets applied. When it is wielded against her enemies, it is a great moral triumph, and imperative that we support it not because of the immediate politics, but because we must support the system that is so essential to a good world order.
When that same rules based order is wielded against the US's allies, it is an outrageous exercise of biased politics, and we will use our military might to crush attempts to enforce it.
If you ever wonder why we have problems rallying the world against Russia and China, this is why. For all we talk about acting in the interest of a global rules based order, third world countries look at the situation and think "bollocks, you are all just acting for your own interests, so we are going to do the same and ally with whoever can offer us the most"
Same as the last time. The US has been clear that no US boots will be on the ground in Gaza, so we will either: A) wag are finger and request an Israeli investigation if it appears the rocket came from Israel or B) issue a strongly worded statement condemming Hamas for the deliberate attack.
What are these known solutions to domestic violence?
Fully funding shelters is good. However, the victims that reach of point of reaching out to even contact help are just the tip of the iceberg. If your solution doesn't kick in until then, it does not address the other 90%
The BBC has a long standing policy against calling people/organizations terrorists.
Their position in this case says nothing about how they view Hamas. The position of those complaining about it says a lot about how they view the role news organizations.
Sudo is a setuid binary, which means it executes with root permissions as a child of of the calling process. This technically works, but gives the untrusted process a lot of ways to mess with sudo and potentially exploit it for unauthorized access.
Run0 works by having a system service always running in the background as root. Running a command just sends a message to the already running seevice. This leaves a lot less room for exploits.
The final arbiters won't weigh in until years after the conflict is over. Currently, the US is the only organization other than Israel itself with meaningful oversight abilities short of direct military action against Israel.
Had the state department found Israel used US weapons to commit such a violation, US law would require us to stop sending them. There really isn't another arbiter that can do anything in time to make a difference.
How is Ben-Gvir a minister? And how is the US acting like a government that would appoint him as the minister of national security is conducting this war in anything resembling an ethical way?
When he turned 18 and reported for mandatory conscription, the IDF rejected him for being too extreme.
After Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo occords, the last best chance for a peaceful resolution to this conflict, Ben-Gvir stole Rabin's hood ornament and brandished it on national television saying something to the effect of "we got his ornament, we can get Rabin". Not long after, an Israeli extremist assasinated Rabin; and with him any hope of peace.
He has since been convicted, by an Israeli court, of supporting a terrorist organization (Kach), and incirement of racism.
That is the man in charge of Israel's national security.
Israel will also control the pier. The US is operating in close coordination with Israel, and of the 2, Israel is the only one who will have boots on the ground. The IDF already surrounds the pier. All aid flowing through the pier needs to be inspected by Israel before departing from Cyprus, then will need to pass through another set of Israeli checkpoints after being unloaded in Gaza before being distributed.
I'm aware of that. What I'm not aware of is how a pier helps. Israel has not conducted strikes in Egypt, or in Israel, so Israeli strikes are not a reason to have aid avoid either of those countries. The Israeli strikes have hit aid groups traveling within Gaza. It doesn't matter if aid gets to gaza at a land border, or an sea border. It still needs to be transported within Gaza, so it still has all of the same problems.
No we don't. There is 0 reason to build a humanitarian relief pier in Gaza. Most of Gaza's border is our "close ally" in this conflict. The other border is willing to aid to pass through their territory. Both countries are advanced, and have more than enough logistical infastructure to facilitate all the aid transfers that are nessasary.
The land corridor is more than capable of facilitating aid deliveries. The pier is a PR stunt to make it look like we are working on the problem.
That's what happens when you take dozens of gods that never agreed with other and collapse them into a single all knowing god. None of your stories make sense anymore, and any moral lesson they taught is lost.
Not just the court. The prosecutor's office as well. Their position is "we are ok with letting you go; as long as we can do it without admitting that we made a mistake".
And this is an institutional problem. The conviction happened 38 years ago. Everyone involved in prosecuting the case is gone. The office of the prosecutor is simply unable to admit that the office made a mistake.
Or, the lesson is: if you want to prosecute a rapist, don't bring up rapes other than the one you are prosecuting.
The defense brought this up at trial not because Weinstein had expensive lawyers, but because any competent defense attorney would. At that point, the judge decided the defense was wrong, and the prosecution decided to take the risk that the defense was right. That risk backfired. Now, every Judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney in the juristiction is on notice about how to correctly apply prior bad acts rules to sexual assult cases, so they should be able to avoid making this mistake again.
No. It is the equivalent of a PC maker going "yeah. I don't think we are going to put in a CD drive anymore because the DVD drive we have been including for years can do CDs as well"
This is aid through the Karem Shalom border crossing, which is at the border of Gaza, Egypt, and Israel. Egypt does not, and never has, controlled this crossing. The checkpoint into Gaza is on the Israeli side of the Egypt/Israel border and has always been administered by Israel.
Egypt, of course, controls its borders, and so is able to prevent aid from reaching the crossing through Egypt. However, Egypt has no control over aid that reaches the crossing through Israel.
This is in contrast to the Rafah crossing, which is entirely on the Egypt/Gaza border, and so would require Egypt's cooperation to open. That crossing remains closed.
It is good that Egypt is allowing aid to Karem Shalom; and their refusal to allow it through the Rafah crossing would be a warcrime but for the technicality that they are not a party to the war.
However, the same benefit to this move could be accomplished by passing aid through Israel. Israel is a party to this war, and so is under a legal requirement to allow aid in. US law also requires that Israel do so in order to receive military assistance [0]. Further, Israel is under specific instructions from the ICJ to allow in humanitarian aid. And Israeli leadership is likely to be issued a warrent by the ICC for (among other things) blocking tge delivery of humanitarian aide.
Israel requirement to allow humanitarian aide to Gaza through Israel is not some new concept. Nor is it asking for some unheard of generousity from the Israeli people to their enemy. It is simply their longstanding obligation for waging a war in compliance witg international law. An obligation they claim (externally at least) that they are meeting. So, Egypts assistance should be completely irrelevant to the Karem Shalom crossing.
The reason we need Egypt here is that Israel is not complying with its obligations. Part of the difficulty is a minority of Israeli citizens taking matters into their own hands. To the Israeli government's credit, they are providing some security to protect aid deliveries from Israeli protesters.
To their detriment, this protection is opposed by National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, who has also said I am against the fact that they attack and burn trucks, it is the cabinet which should stop the trucks
There has also been reporting of IDF members leaking aid movements to protesters; although I am not sure hiw widespread that is.
[0] A requirement that the US is not enforcing.