That may be so, but it doesn’t stop it from being a complicated situation. What happens to US international relations when the rest of their allies come to the conclusion that they’ll be met with bombs and threats when they don’t respond to requests the way the US wants? If the US does far, far less, how much less is enough and how much is too much? What happens when Iran, its proxies, and other adversaries of Israel realize that its biggest ally no longer has its back?

I’m not telling you that calling for an end to the bloodshed is wrong, it’s not. I’m not telling you that the United States and the international community are doing enough to pressure Israel to respect human rights. I don’t think anyone knows enough of what’s going on behind the scenes to say for certain that enough is being done and what’s going on in front of our eyes says that more is required. What I am saying is that complex, world issues are complex and we cannot have a full understanding of them, nor a productive discussion about them unless we acknowledge their complexities.

Edit: I do appreciate the breakdown of how a threat works though.

You mean in an electoral democracy prospective leaders have to go out and sell the populace on their vision for the country’s path forward? Color me shocked. Who knew leaders would have to communicate with the people?

I don’t think many people are saying that the morality of a genocide is complicated, but I think plenty of people ARE saying that classifying a genocide when no two look alike and both sides of the current conflict obfuscate and lie about the facts is complicated. A lot of people are saying that responding to a genocide occurring within an entrenched conflict in one of the most volatile regions on the globe where nearly every major world power has involvement and interests IS complicated. Many of those saying that international diplomacy is complicated understand that when the most important allies of a nation violating human rights pull their support too hard or too fast that that nation is likely to accelerate its plans to try and accomplish its goals before further repercussions prevent it.

We certainly shouldn’t let these complexities prevent us from speaking out regarding what we feel is right, but pretending they don’t exist only serves the most cynical and self-serving of political interests. Resolving human rights abuses is always more complicated than slapping a genocide or not genocide label on the situation and saying “genocide bad” or “not genocide okay.”

Surprisingly, no. They counted deaths from exposure, drowning, etc as fatalities in this study: https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/the-myths-of-ditching/

This is just a review of NTSB data and some ditchings may have gone unreported. The main point is that ditching, even in the open ocean is very survivable.

https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/the-myths-of-ditching/

Sorry for the wait. I had family visiting and completely forgot about my comment. I believe I recall an FAA study with similar findings, but I can’t find it atm.

Remember kids, according to an FAA review of accidents, no type of water ditching has lower than an eighty percent survivability rating. So putting it in the drink is always an option.

Election results always seem to mean exactly what the person writing about them has been telling everyone for years. Funny that.

Do you have a suggested solution?

Least egotistical pilot.

I think you’ve got the wrong type of Goths for that last one.