Israel Retaliates to Cyber-Attack with Immediate Physical Action in World First
forbes.com
forbes.com
As long as that state is Palestine? Would North Korea, Iran, Russia, US (you name it) get the same treatment under similar circumstances?
If this wasn’t in the midst of 600 rockets being fired this wouldn’t have been greenlit either.
Blowing up a building in Moscow has a different repercussion to blowing up a building in Gaza.
Same goes for rockets fired at Israel than say the US or Germany.
I can guarantee to you that if 600 rockets would’ve been fired into the US from Mexico the response would not have been so limited in scope.
As for the rest of the reaction, I doubt there are many wars going on right now in which so many atrocities and war crimes were committed, with the rest of the world attributing them to a "response to a hack".
I don’t think you realize just how disproportionate the amount of media attention this gets.
I can think of many ongoing conflicts both in the region and anywhere else that are far bigger in scope.
What I meant is that the reactions are not comparable. If the US used methods classified as inhuman by every single humanitarian organization that was ever involved in that conflict, then the hundreds of crude and inefficient rockets that rarely make victims would be be framed differently. Wars kill but how they kill is the difference.
Even in your examples the official justification usually involved more than a hack. You can tell how much one party cares about giving legitimacy to its actions by the effort it puts in building a justification.
As far as the “human rights” organizations go they have little legitimacy considering how most of them operate and their selection bias.
This is the easiest conflict to cover it’s pretty much risk free and they can still get Sushi in Tel Aviv over the weekend, same goes for the media there are more foreign journalists and media staff stationed in Israel than the entirety of Africa.
I’m not entirely sure what you expect Israel to do besides going back to the days where they had a suicide bombing on average every 3 days and the casualties were essentially 1:1 like it was during the mid 90’s and early 2000’s.
Hamas is classified as an enemy of the state by Israel as far as targets go this is a legitimate target.
Now if you have a solution that does not exchanges casualties on one side for casualties on the other I’m all ears but until then I don’t see here an argument other than a misguided appeal to emotions.
> Hamas is classified as an enemy of the state by Israel as far as targets go this is a legitimate target.
Surely your opinion is more legitimate and weighs more than their's right? Your bias is barely showing, especially when proudly declaring that war crimes, atrocities, and human rights violations are irrelevant or justified because "they be the enemy".
It's the kind of explanation you'd imagine was used in the Nuremberg trials by those who also considered anything done to "the enemy" was justified and legitimate. I hope you'll excuse me, I'll have to make my exit here before you plumb new depths of abjection.
I have made my point pretty clearly: considering what happens in that war, claiming that a hit was the natural response to hacking is both a needless excuse and a load of BS (given that no other non-Palestinian hacking attempt triggers this reaction).
These 16 words were the pretext for the disastrous US war against Iraq. These words were false and US officials knew they were false when they were uttered.
But at least after the fact we can examine the evidence and know that our leaders used yet another false pretext to lead us to catastrophe.
How will we ever determine if a presumed cyber attack (a) actually occurred, (b) was dangerous enough to justify a response, or (c) could have been dealt with in some way other than blowing up people?
Seems like the perfect pretext for another catastrophe.
Why would you accuse me of something so outrageous?