To ???, pt 4

Greta's latest posts on Instagram.

This is like how when Israel accuses groups in Gaza or Lebanon of using human shields, and putting military assets close to civilians. Storing arms in civilian buildings instead of on military bases away from any civilians.

These groups do this because they are weak. (Whereas when Israel obliterated entire families because they stood on the roof of their home to prevent Israel from bombing it, only to get bombed anyway, it did not mean that Hamas was using them as human shields, just that people did not want to lose their home.)

What was the law that Hamas used when it reportedly executed people after the truce, a few months ago? People who had cooperated with Israel or whatever.

Israel has not executed anyone because of the new law, and it's unclear if they ever will. The images mention a German who was executed after being illegally abducted and then put to trial; if Israel executed someone under the new law, then it would no longer be possible to mention that German as the last person to be executed. Why call for nations to break ties with Israel because of this law, but not call for them to stop supporting Palestine due to Hamas's (purported, I did not look into it) executions of traitors?

Calling it "based on ethnicity": Hamas, or whatever group is in charge if the agreement that Hamas would no longer be in charge was followed, cannot execute Israelis for trying to destroy Gaza because Palestine is weak. Although it captured many Israelis, it was more beneficial to keep them alive. Israel can easily capture more Palestinians and so they hold no value as captives for the political equivalent of ransom. If Palestine was strong, it might be just as willing to execute Israelis captured under circumstances which would not qualify them as prisoners of war (for example, commandos who don't wear military uniforms are generally recognized as not being afforded the status of prisoners of war). And so, because of weakness, Palestine does not do one bad thing (threaten to execute prisoners) but does another bad thing (hide military among civilians).

Killing 50k or whatever civilians is certainly worse than threatening to possibly execute prisoners who have been convicted (fairly or not) of particularly bad offenses. People just move on to the latest problem, which is exactly why Israel thought that it could get away with taking over a bunch of land, 80 years ago.

Discussion here: https://youtu.be/aI7J2wJw3u8?t=1184 (19:44)

"How do I keep on living and putting effort into every day knowing I will probably not live in a couple of years because of a looming invasion the inability to change the situation all while the environment [becomes worse]"?

— the fact that I edited that reminds me of when Greta promised not to use bad words. It might have been her willingness to use bad words that brought attention to her. So it could have been interpreted as saying she was not trying as hard to get influence that could be used to fix problems.

Anyway. There is a long discussion, like I disagreed when at 23:02 he said,

"You will not be punished for not actively trying to solve all the world's ills. Solve what you can, but don't beat yourself up if it's not everything."

But then he says at 24:43,

"If you want to do that heroic thing, go for it. If you want to take on the world's ills, go for it. The world is not — we are not hurting for people that want to help. We are hurting for people that can. [...] We are short on people who actively actually do things that do change the world."

Well. Would Imane have shared the idea before I stopped emailing her, if she had known I would write almost 60 weblog posts addressed to her? Perhaps me saying "you shall be rid of me" was deceptive if she thought that I would not start writing these posts. But I stopped watching dramas as a consequence of her not sharing the idea: a consequence I imposed on myself, not one that she asked for, but if she did read my emails then I consider it fair to blame this slightly harmful outcome for me on her. If she had demonstrated that she cared about me being able to continue watching dramas, she would not have had to deal with the consequence of possibly being unsure of whether I want her to receive these messages, since I'm not emailing them to her.