> ? I seem to remember the ICJ deciding they weren't
Is this some reality distortion field? This never happened. Instead the ICJ issued multiple explicit orders to Israel that Israel has violated and the genocide case is still ongoing.
It's a bad law (although somewhat covered with 'good intentions', it does have a scent of racism which shouldn't exist in state laws).
However, note that the outcome was the unintentional creation of Jewish/Arabs communities in the Galilee, which actually help bring Jews and Arabs together.
It is also important to note that Arab Israelis have full rights as citizens, have representatives in the parliament and even were a part of the previous coalition. This, of course, is not the case for Palestinians in the occupied territories, and this issue MUST be resolved (one- or two-state solution, either way the current situation is unbearable).
With that, the current coalition does include extremists, and many (according to recent polls, >60%) in Israel want to see them replaced.
The fact that someone dislikes their government's current ruling regime doesn't mean they want the US to invade and install a puppet government instead. It's a false dichotomy.
> if the regime is actually somehow magically removed I don't think attacking Israel would be a high priority
Attacking Israel hasn't been a high priority for Iran. When Israel bombed an Iranian consulate, Iran referred it to the security council and waited, but the security council took no action. When Israel carries out an assassination within Iran, Iran did the same thing. Only after the UN refused to do anything to hold Israel to account did Iran retaliate. Then recently Israel launched a massive series of strikes against Iran, assassinating top members of its military and blowing up apartment buildings. It seems clear that the Iranian government didn't want to go to war with Israel, but at a certain point they ran out of options.
Iran has been attacking Israelthrough its proxies. Israel struck the Iranian consulate in a country they're at war with meeting proxies they're at war with. This is indeed an escalation. As a response Iran launched a huge number of ballistic missiles and drones at Israel, which is a major eacalation and direct attack.
> Attacking Israel hasn't been a high priority for Iran.
Really?
It is interesting that you made no mention of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, not Houthi in Yemen. All are well-known proxies for Iran to militarily harass Israel. They all receive direct funds and weapons from Iran.
lol. Watch Khameni’s morning broadcast where they have hundreds of delusional adherents shouting “Death to America, Death to Israel” 50 times in a row. I’m sure you’ll come out feeling the same way.
There are lots of people in this thread who are defaulting to "when the US attacks someone that's by default OK, and you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not".
What makes it OK specifically for the US to do this? There is an entire international framework to deal with non proliferation. Bombing another country on the other side of the world because you can is not that.
The people who decide if it's okay are the ones with nuclear weapons. They are the ones who built and enforce the framework for determining what "okay" even means. That's why nuclear weapon acquisition is so powerful. And why it's so fiercely protected.
The framework to deal with non-proliferation depends on the states involved voluntarily participating in the framework. Iran was not doing so.
There are numerous countries that enjoy paranuclear status who have had no problem not lying to the IAEA.
You cannot place blame for this outcome on anyone other than Iran, they made the move entirely of their own volition. Once you open the door for consequence, you don't get to choose how it is handed out.
You completely missed the point. Whether certain actions are "OK" are not is utterly irrelevant in geopolitical affairs. Sovereign states will always act in their (perceived) best interest regardless of legalisms or moral codes. Justifications are then manufactured for public consumption.
Ultima ratio regum.
As for international frameworks, how should the Non-Proliferation Treaty be enforced? If a country violates it then what should the consequences be?
Israel signed the Rome statue and has repeatedly violated specific orders from the ICJ to prevent genocide, so let's not pretend that this is somehow about a concern for international law.
Another great point! The US doesn't recognize the ICJ anymore after it was caught illegally planting mines in Nicaraguan harbors and lost in the ICJ. A verdict the US still has not complied with. Just more evidence that upholding international law isn't a priority for the US.
Actually I think this is unacceptable even in isolation. Chrome is one of the most popular Windows applications. If they aren't testing for regressions with Chrome, they aren't testing adequately.
> Microsoft hasn't been doing testing adequately since 2014
Maybe since forever. You always had to wait for the latest SP to have something stable. This ended with Win7. Since then they are "agile" and "rolling".
But think of the savings! They got so many rubes to sign up as "insiders" to be yes-men and ignore all the breaking bugs and go LGTM because they got to play with the shiny beta software!
Incompetence reins there. A few years ago I was working on an MSI deployment for something and Defender decided to think it was a virus. Turned out it was an MSFT DLL that we included with it that was tripping it. Took a whole month for them to sort it out.
reply