[FormerBandmate]

Tear gas and sponge-tipped bullets are used by police everywhere, including New Zealand of all places.

Al Jazeera is literally Qatari government propaganda and there’s substantial evidence that DCI Palestine is tied to terrorist groups (https://www.reuters.com/world/finnish-christian-charity-cuts...). Don’t let propagandists blow tragic accidents out of proportion to scapegoat the Jews

[teux]

It’s possible to be critical of Israel’s approach without being antisemitic, or as you put it, “scapegoating the Jews”.

Remote controlled munitions, “less than lethal” or not, are deeply concerning no matter who operates them.

On the topic of safety of LLMs, from the discussion of the study:

“In one report [25], over 13% of the cases resulted in moderate to severe injuries with surgical intervention being required in 8% of the cases and another 18% sustaining a traumatic brain injury. ”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41314-022-00045-0

Not something I’m keen to see used anywhere. Much less in a robotic deployment situation.

[aww_dang]

If killer robots are inevitable, it makes sense to start with less than lethal robots. Just change the weapons or ammo.

edit: Please don't read this as an endorsement of violence of any kind. Thanks.

[woodruffw]

What makes Israel somewhat unique is the readiness with which it deploys “less lethal” weapons. I don’t think New Zealand regularly tear gasses large areas under its control, or fires sponge-tipped bullets into crowds.

And, as a Jew: Israel is not “the Jews.” They’re a country, one that does not represent my interests, or the interests of millions of other Jews.

[_glass]

It does. Also New Zealand, the land of the Māori. You could construct here a narrative of "large areas under its control", i.e. European settlers vs. Māori. Israel is not a special country here.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/this-is-a-mome...

[woodruffw]

What does? Are you saying that New Zealand regularly tear gasses the Māori? I’ve never heard that before.

I have no doubt whatsoever that New Zealand’s colonization was violent, inhumane, and broadly under-accounted for. This doesn’t somehow excuse Israel, which is unique by virtue of the recency of its founding and actions.

Besides, things don’t need to be special or unique to be wrong. Everything I’ve said would apply equally even if Israel does not stand out in its contemporary applications of violence (which it does), and still bears unique relevance by claiming to represent people like me (which it doesn’t) through blanket claims of antisemitism.

[weatherlite]

> which is unique by virtue of the recency of its founding and actions.

Israel's founding is 74 years now - that's not super recent. When does something like this becomes OK in your eyes? Or is simply exterminating 99% of the natives as was done in Australia, Canada, U.S and New Zealand what makes it OK? Not much of a problem if almost all of them are dead and the remains live in reservoirs right?

[ceejayoz]

> Tear gas and sponge-tipped bullets are used by police everywhere, including New Zealand of all places.

This is odd though, right? Using tear gas in war is a war crime, for almost a hundred years now. It's very strange that we permit its use on civilian populations.

[bluefirebrand]

If the Geneva convention wasn't a blanket ban on chemical weapons, tear gas wouldn't likely be covered by it.

Guessing at intent, because obviously I wasn't involved in writing it, It was written to be as blanket as possible to avoid future uses of mustard gas or anything remotely like it, and to avoid quibbles of "Well it's not Exactly mustard gas which is the only thing explicitly banned".

Not saying that using tear gas on civilians is awesome and we should tolerate it, but tear gas isn't really at that level.

Now I'm actually wondering if pepper spray would be considered a war crime too

[coredog64]

There’s an escalation risk in using tear gas and that’s why it’s a war crime.

[mechanical_bear]

It isn’t odd, you just don’t understand the motivation for inclusion on the banned list. It was outlawed due to the threat of miscalculation. Scenario: You see me launch tear gas, but think it’s mustard gas, you launch mustard gas in return.

[mistermann]

> Don’t let propagandists blow tragic accidents out of proportion to scapegoat the Jews

Similarly, be careful that you don't let decades of propaganda bias you towards thinking that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

If their actions and cause is just, I would think they would have no aversion to free and honest speech about it.

[saiya-jin]

I'll be polite and assume this is not an attempt to start some anti-semitic flamewar to diverge conversation from topic, but it sure looks like one.

Israel as a state would like to be seen as western democracy and approached accordingly, which brings inevitable requirements on the behavior of any such state. What they do, and how they do it often leaves a lot to desire, or even hold some basic human rights threshold.

There is a reason why West bank is for decades often called 'biggest concentration camp in the western world'. How they often shoot to kill civilians throwing rocks (or unarmed female journalists), how they use these 'non-lethal' weapons in a very lethal way against innocent bystanders, and yes including babies. How these crimes go completely utterly unpunished due to rampart camaraderie (I mean former/future PM is former spec-ops team leader, so lots of things get a pass)