It was the headline that loaded when I put the URL in, if I can change the headline to what it currently says I will.

Done.

I Camembert the tragic loss.

I too was wondering at first, "jeez that sounds conspicuous, what kind of silenced forklifts did they use?"

K, with all that, the article still disagrees.

Apnews is a Zionist outlet?

This is objective misinformation.

K, the article disagrees.

Regional experts suggested that Israel’s relatively limited target list was intentionally calibrated to make it easier for Iran to back away from escalation.

As Yoel Guzansky, who formerly worked for Israel’s National Security Council and is now a researcher at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, put it: Israel’s decision to focus on purely military targets allows Iran “to save face.”

Israel giving them the out.

The Guardian revealed earlier this year how Israel’s intelligence agencies ran a decade-long campaign against the ICC that included threats and attempts to smear senior staff. Against this backdrop, ICC officials close to Khan are strongly hinting the allegations may be part of a smear campaign by Israel.

However, in a months-long investigation into the allegations against Khan, the Guardian has found no evidence that Israel, or any other country, had any involvement in the underlying allegations – although there does appear to have been a subsequent effort by anonymous actors to brief journalists and post leaks online.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/dw-news/

Overall, we rate Deutsche Welle (DW) Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that slightly favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record. (8/15/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 05/26/2024)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources#Sources

Deutsche Welle is a German state-owned international broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable. Some editors consider that the quality of DW depends on the language edition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Welle

Deutsche Welle (pronounced [ˈdɔʏtʃə ˈvɛlə] ⓘ; "German Wave"), commonly shortened to DW (pronounced [deːˈveː]), is a German public, state-owned international broadcaster funded by the German federal tax budget. The service is available in 32 languages. DW's satellite television service consists of channels in German, English, Spanish, Hindi, Persian, and Arabic. The work of DW is regulated by the Deutsche Welle Act, stating that content is intended to be independent of government influence. DW is a member of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU).

Additionally, dw.com has been posted here countless times before with no question. I see no reason to question it here as well.

https://lemmy.world/post/21283713 https://lemmy.world/post/21100258 https://lemmy.world/post/20702216 https://lemmy.world/post/18000853

Quite the privileged perspective, shaming Palestinians for trying to get what is arguably the best outcome for Gaza out of all the likely options. "Voting with your conscience" always seemed like a worse move than "voting with your brain."

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/uncommitted-voting-kamala-harris

In what follows, I will further explain why many “Uncommitted” voters should consider voting for Harris-Walz, by distinguishing between different kinds of “Uncommitted” voters and the different sorts of moral and political commitments that might lead them to be electorally “uncommitted,” and that also might lead them to commit the singular act of casting a vote for Kamala Harris.

My hope is that this will persuade at least some readers that the defeat of Trumpism is an urgent moral and political imperative that should be important even to many who are understandably outraged by the Biden administration’s deafness to the demands of “Uncommitted” citizens.

In a way, what I am saying is very similar to what leaders of the “Uncommitted” initiative have themselves said, by publicly refusing to “endorse Harris” but declaring that their movement “opposes a Donald Trump presidency, and urging supporters “to vote against him and avoid third-party candidates that can inadvertently boost his changes.” Indeed, Ilhan Omar, one of the strongest pro-Palestinian advocates in the U.S. government, has even endorsed Harris, even as she continues to support “Uncommitted” demands. Those leaders obviously have more credibility than I do, and what they are saying strikes me as wise. In what follows I simply elaborate on some of the reasons why others might consider it wise.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/satellite-photos-show-israel-hit-iran-missile-fuel-mixing-facilities-researchers-2024-10-26/

Commercial satellite imagery showed that Israeli airstrikes hit buildings during an attack on Saturday that Iran used for mixing solid fuel for ballistic missiles, according to separate assessments by two American researchers.

The judgments were reached by David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector who heads the Institute for Science and International Security research group, and Decker Eveleth, an associate research analyst at CNA, a Washington think tank.

Additional reporting: https://www.timesofisrael.com/unrwa-confirms-hamas-nukhba-force-commander-killed-in-idf-strike-was-a-staff-member/

Additional reporting: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/10/25/7481372/

Mmk

Edit: I'm not sticking around to discover how these arguments evolve again and again.

No it isn't (math) and yes you did (quoted).

Your original complaint (spending more on Israel than climate change) was at least an order of magnitude or two off from what is actually going on, and the "millions" part was easily disproven. Confronted with that, your new complaint (to the same ends) is now the time span under which these sums are dedicated, no longer the actual amount, despite that being satisfied now. I know what that sounds like.

Did you find a source that proves we could meet our climate goals if we didn't fund Israel?

I understand the fallacy and what you said. The article seems to report more than 17.9 billion in total. Now it sounds like the goal posts are shifting.

Thanks for the discussion.

That's one part of the article, yes. And your last claim requires a citation.

But! If we stopped wasting money burning fuel for Israel, we could meet those goals!

Again, I understand the fallacy. I trust you will amend your previous statements? "Billions for climate change"?

I understand the fallacy, thanks.