World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Israel could have broken the back of Hamas by simply helping the Palestinian people develop a bit of infrastructure and economy. If the Palestinians have something worth losing, Hamas has no power. Hamas is as powerful as it is because of Israels policies over the last 20 years.
Policies and direct funding
They've openly bragged about funding Hamas in order to keep the Palestinian population divided and prevent any kind of formal government from forming.
Hamas and Likud/Netanyahu need each other to stay in power. Without them, the people in the region may actually move towards peace.
And Hamas could have built Gazans an OK place to live in if they used the literally billions of dollars of foreign money for investments instead of for weapons and tunnels. Didn't happen either.
With what economy?
Israel is a first world nation with a high performance technocratic economy. What does Palestine have to work with?
We're again talking about what should have been done, and my point is that it's a pointless exercise, but if you really can't see any ways to build a functioning economy with literally billions of free money, then let's continue the exercise: about half of Palestinians used to have permits to work in Israel before Hamas fucked them over by attacking Israel. In the recent years the number of Israeli work permits has been increasing again, unfortunately Hamas decided to fuck them over again. So even if they had a small economy of their own, there was a way to work and bring money to then spend in Gaza.
But I find it really hard to believe you couldn't imagine a dozen things more useful for Gazans than things to wage war against Israel that ultimately only ever made their situation worse.
Another episode of "what should have been done" is that while with humanitarian aid it's not really possible, we never should have sent Gaza any development money without any conditions based on outcomes of their usage. But as with the above, what's done is done.
Ok, well, right now, Israel is a first world nation with a high performance technocratic economy and Palestine is rubble being ground into dust. Israel has the privilege to do better.
I'm not sure what else they're supposed to do. After a terrorist attack like this one, I don't really see any other option that would realistically be accepted by the government and the population other than attempting to wipe out Hamas completely. Israel is risking many lives of Israeli soldiers in order to reduce Palestinian civilian casualties by deciding to do a terribly difficult ground invasion instead of levelling Gaza to rubble, Grozny style. I don't blame them for trying to make the situation at least a bit easier by blocking communication of all things.
are you making the argument that the correct response to a terrorist attack is to genocide the people where the terrorists are based? because that's what Israel is doing right now It doesn't matter that they are Jews and have also suffered a genocide in their past. this is material, here and now, and happening. and you just argued for it.
Israel is a powerful nation with all the options they can imagine on the table. If they can't imagine another option then that's on them.
You say that, but I don't see any other way to remove the Hamas threat than what they're doing. Is your argument just "Israel is all-powerful and they should find a different way even if we don't see any!"?
What? I'm mentioning Grozny. Have you heard about Grozny? If you haven't, maybe I understand how you could interpret my message in that way, though I still don't think it makes sense. In the second Chechen war, this is what Grozny looked like after Russia was finished with it, most likely on false pretenses (putin faking appartment bombings around Russia and blaming it on Chechens). They simply turned it to rubble.
Israel could do this and get away with it just like Russia did, and their reasons for attacking Hamas are more serious than reasons Russians had to attack Chechnya. Instead of doing that they chose to do a ground invasion, which will reduce the loss of civilian lives and infrastructure, despite the fact that it will dramatically increase the casualties on Israeli side.
That is not genocide, that is deciding to avoid genocide in a situation where they could likely get away with it.
@V17 @pleasemakesense @LostMyRedditLogin @Szymon @NOT_RICK @TropicalDingdong That is literally the worst argument I've heard. Considering the Israel is currently bombing the concentration camp that they have kept the Palestinians prisoners in.
They aren't fighting Hamas. They're conducting ethnic cleansing
Then you need to do better. They can use special ops. They can appeal to the Palestinian people. They can revise their foreign policy to not set these situations up in the first place (see the previous 20 years of Israeli policy towards Palestine).
They arent' targeting Hamas, they are targeting any Palestinian with a pulse. Right now, you are acting as an apologist for a genocide and you should seriously reconsider your position. It will not age well.
If they could, they would have already done so.
They're doing that as well, but thinking that this would solve the situation is LOL, LMAO even.
I see we're getting back to "well they should have done xxxx". Israel stopped the occupation of Gaza and let them have free elections to govern themselves. As a result Hamas with a stated goal of destroying Israel won and started doing terrorists attacks on towns around Gaza. So Israel built a wall. So maybe Palestinians can revisit their foreign policy towards Israel (see the previous 20 years of Palestinian policy towards Israel).
Again, if they did that, they would have been levelling Gaza to the ground without risk to their soldiers, they have the resources to do so. They announced in advance that they will do an assault on northern Gaza to give civilians the chance to leave and go south for now, and even if they initially gave them ridiculously short 24 hours, the actual time given was days longer than that. Only, a large part of the civilians were prevented from doing so... Not by the IDF, but by Hamas, wanting to use them as human shields as usual.
Right now, you are acting as an apologist for a monstrous terrorist attack and you should seriously reconsider your position. It will not age well.
If Israel actually commits genocide, I will change my position. So far that does not seem to be the case.
This is a false equivalency. I feel sorry for what has happened to you, but its clear that their is no fixing it. You've warped yourself into a position where you are justifying the genocide of a people.
Meh. I could literally say the same to you. I repeated what you said in an ironic manner, but I was serious about it. But it's not like our argument has any influence on the real world anyway, so we'll see how the situation develops in a year or two.
That is not what I said or meant. You keep misinterpreting my words to fit in your view of "anybody who disagrees with me has to be malicious". That is not how reality works.
You seem to be so convinced by only exposing yourself to completely one-sided views that you cannot even imagine that someone could disagree with you without being evil. You did not respond to most things I said in this discussion and now you're calling me names. You're the one who should "do better", as useless as the phrase is.