Suppose they did know beforehand, had the plans, but didn't take any measures to mitigate the risk.
You don't think that makes them appear incompetent or malicious? If they knew in advance but did nothing, that would be admitting to permitting the deaths of their own civilians. That's not exactly good PR, like you suggest.
I'm sorry, but there is no situation where it is permissible to stand idle as someone suffers an untimely and preventable death.
Even soldiers at war, captured in foreign territory without visas, are entitled to lifesaving care.
OK. So by that logic, let's say you are touring Europe and have a heart attack. The paramedics are in the area and available, but refuse to take you to the hospital. You are left to die on the street.
You think you deserve such foul treatment?
When a government is informed that people are dying within its waters, and the gov has the capability to respond but deliberately chooses not to because the victims are "african", you think that the government bears no responsibity for their deaths?
Is it really so different though? The outcome of both situations is the same. Migrants are dying, through direct action and deliberate inaction.
Mediterranean nations have the opportunity to protect lives, but instead they choose kill / let migrants die.
Or maybe... It is the realization that we exist in such a sad state of affairs, that an absurdist performance is nearly indistinguishable from the legitimate politics of a non-negligible voting bloc.
You are defending willful negligence that leads to the deaths of migrants.
Up to 1 in 13 migrants die in the Mediterranean. Italy as well as Greece have been allowing migrants to die as a part of deterrence-based migration policy. Rescuing the passengers of capsized migrant vessels has been criminalized. There are plenty of articles that confirm these facts. Here is one example.
Yes, this answers all my questions. I now understand completely.
What do you mean "palestine"?
Do you not recognize the Palestine Authority, but instead believe the entire region has always belonged to israel via biblical predestination?
It was "palestine" before it was ever "israel", unless you mean the mythical (biblical) "Kingdom of israel", of which there is no evidence of its existence.
The fact is, Zionists invaded "palestine" and took the land and homes of the then-current native Palestinians for themselves.
But sure, free "palestine" from those who murder civilians and children.
right now
Only just recently?
Line goes up in relation to how successfully the corporation pursues the agenda of those with power (read: money).
Are you trying to equate the ideology of a political regime with a minority population of South Africans?
South Africa had no right to exist as an apartheid state, and Israel has no right to exist as an apartheid state.
After apartheid ended and living conditions improved, black South Africans didn't go and slaughter every white South African as retribution, so when Israel says freed Palestinians would slaughter all Israelites, why should we believe them?
If the occupation ended today and Palestinians were allowed to live fairly and given ample resources to rebuild, what reason would they have to seek further conflict? If treated fairly, why would Palestinians act any differently than the South Africans freed from apartheid? This conflict is ultimately the direct result of unfair treatment after all.
They are certainly bigoted, but I think you are vastly underestimating the totality of the IDF's mass surveillance of Palestinians.