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
Sounds like they still do it sometimes but not often, thanks for the correction.
Where did I say roofknocking justified bombings? I'm pointing out that Israel is not behaving in a way that supports characterizing their actions in Gaza as Nazi-like, their intention is not to eradicate Arabs. I suspect their intention is to clear North Gaza and annex it down to the Gaza river but that's just my personal take.
Allegedly there was a network of tunnels under the area as well.
I'm curious, what would you do if you were in Israel's shoes, if your city just had thousands of people murdered and kidnapped then fled into a densely populated hostile territory? What do you think the right move is here?
Because someone couldn't also be informed and simply disagree with you?
If you want the hostages, you negotiate, not bomb where the hostages are. You also don't wait 2 days to secure the area while immediately hitting the "bomb gaza" button. The conflict makes so much more sense when you realize Israel cares more about killing and displacing Palestinians than saving their own people. (Hannibal doctrine)
If I'm in Israel's shoes, I wouldn't be demonizing and dehumanizing an entire people I've stolen land from.
Let's say I magically became ruler on Oct 7th. There's only two ways out of the conflict for good, full scale genocide and ethnic cleansing or reparations and a one state secular solution. Obviously I choose the latter.
The issue is what kicked this round of genocide off.
Hamas broke out of the open air prison and attacked Israeli civilians as well as foreign citizens in truly barbaric ways. Murder, rape, defiling corpses, all that stuff. (Allegedly?) recorded on go pros and other cameras provided by Hamas.
And, like it or not, Hamas are the de facto government of Gaza. And I think they "won" the last election they allowed to happen?
An Israeli government that immediately follows up with "Hey, lets give the country that just attacked us and are still holding our people hostage a lot of land, money, and resources" would see themselves facing a coup almost immediately. The US infamously went scorched earth on Jimmy Carter because he wasn't "hard on terrorism" (and it didn't help that republicans were actively sabotaging him in the process...). And that was a few randos on the other side of the country. Not the still warm and mutilated bodies of nieces and nephews.
And, as can be seen with the periodic attacks from terror groups in other nearby nations, Israel still needs to be "strong" for political and defense reasons. If the narrative becomes "Just rape a few Israeli bitches and then you get whatever you want" then... yeah.
The moment Hamas attacked Israeli, German, UK, and other citizens: There was no way this ended peacefully. A two state solution is more or less forever off the table (see the issues that have plagued Yemen) so long as Hamas exists at all.
And a one state solution and reparations cannot happen until, again, Hamas does not exist. The hostages are ancillary to "ensuring this can never happen again".
The only way this would have ended with minimal bloodshed would be if good faith negotiations for hostages had immediately begun... and Mossad and the IDF were able to assassinate basically all of Hamas leadership in surgical strikes while pretending to negotiate. Because anything else is the usual issue with guerilla warfare where the weaker power uses civilians as human shields. And when those shields die, their family and friend become radicalized against the killers.
And this also ignores Hamas leadership allegedly (?) publicly stating they will continue to commit horrifying acts of terror against anyone who is unfortunate enough to be within a few miles of them.
Israel wants Hamas to exist, Netenyahu said it himself in a closed door meeting, and they fund Hamas through Qatar.
Why? Manufacture consent against the exact kind of barbaric enemy Israel propped up.
Human shields is the dumbest fucking talking point. Even if it were true, does that justify all the collateral damage to literal children? Half of Gaza is under 18.
Hamas won because, the United States forced an election the people said they werent ready for. Moderates split the vote, and a failed western backed coup solidified their power. That also happened 16 years ago, long before many of those Gazans were even alive let alone old enough to vote.
So riddle me this, would you be OK with Hamas having guided rockets to take out Israeli targets? If so, what's the ratio of civilian to militant do you think is alright? Think hard before you make a double standard for yourself.
Reparations can and should happen, however I don't think that a one-state solution is viable presently. Each side is still launching bloody attacks against the other; maybe there will be a remote possibility of this after a few generations of peace. If both sides secular and wanted secular government it would certainly provide a lot of common ground.
Only one party has the power to make that a reality, and it isn't the Palestinians.
How so? That doesn't fit with my information. Israel has always been willing to negotiate for peace but as they hold all the cards when it comes to the military and realpolitik situation it needs to be on their terms. Palestine has been unwilling to surrender and make viable peace terms since 1948, despite losing every war. In fact, Hamas has it in their original charter that:
This is why things have gotten so bad for them, a refusal to pacify and make concessions. This is a prerequisite to any one-state solution. The Peel commission found that a one-state solution wasn't viable in the 30's because animosity was so high after the Arab revolt and I suspect not much has changed since then. However, I'd love to be proven wrong. It seems like a bad idea to try and compromise and form a stable government with enemies who actively want to genocide you, like Hamas does.
As for a secular government, neither party has one but Israel seems a hell of a lot more secular than Gaza, whose government appears to be enforcing something like Sharia Law on the people there:
Islam is very intolerant to those who wish to become secular/leave the religion, as per their rules regarding apostates:
Jews are comparatively very tolerant of secularists/atheists among them.
There's no Hamas in the west bank. Why is Israel killing and driving them out? Performing pogroms and all that.
Also why should they be peaceful after the literal Nakba? Israel are the ones on stolen land dude.
I'm not sure what incidents you're referring to, can you refer me to any articles?
Gaza (Hamas) is being treated very differently than the West Bank (PA) by Israel presently.
That's exactly the sort of thinking that led to Gaza's current situation, it completely ignores the realpolitik of their situation and will lead to predictable reprisals from a superior force. "Why should I stop poking the bear, it's in my cave!" Well, here we are, another predictable and preventable mauling.
https://www.972mag.com/settler-attacks-west-bank-gaza-war/
They're not carpet bombing them (wow so kind and restrained of them), but they are continuing to steal homes and land. This has been happening before Oct 7th too. This is what happens when you cooperate with Israel.
Yeah, but the "bear" in the situation is a nation state. It's not an animal or a natural disaster. You're blaming the victim here, you realize right?
Thanks for the source, I wasn't sure if you were referring to settlers or something else I wasn't aware of. Yeah that's pretty fucked up how some settlers treat local Arabs and I hope crimes like the cold-blooded murder on that video are prosecuted. Terrorism is unacceptable. Extremist settlers seem to be partially responsible for a lot of the recent escalation, their flash mob in the temple mount mosque was cited as one of the motivations for Hamas' attack. If they are not kept in check they threaten future peace.
The 20% of Israel's population who are Arab/Palestinians and are not belligerent seem to be faring better. Plenty of governments cooperate with Israel with very good results. So, what's different about these? A long history of warfare and broken promises between them.
Just because one is on the losing end of asymmetrical warfare does not mean they are victims with no responsibility for their situation. Ultimately Palestine's position has mostly to do with declaring war on Israel multiple times and losing, then remaining belligerent and engaging in guerilla attacks against them for the next half-century. Thanks largely to this stoking of animosity despite Palestine's hopeless military situation, both parties have moved further right. Parts of Palestine embraced Hamas, Israel's moderate president was assassinated and the government moved more rightwards. Then, there's the recent attack that killed thousands of civilians. It's hard to see a territory whose government does that as a victim.
There's plenty of examples of victimhood to be found on both sides of this conflict, but ultimately one side has been defeated, has no hope to achieve their military goals, yet refuses to surrender or negotiate for a viable peace. Israel is running out of options for security, the carrot and the stick have not worked, and so I suspect they will now try annexation and distance.
Easy, the material conditions, here's a short that highlights Gaza specifically, and not being under occupation. They have food, water, medical care, aren't under a permit regime, and aren't under threat of having their homes violently stolen.
Are you talking about 1948, when the Nakba was happening and expelling people from their homeland? Or 1967 when Israel did a "pre-emptive" strike to start the six day war and get a land grab?
Man, why does this map keep shrinking? Must be a coincidence. Those darn Arabs did some violence and whoopsie we accidently took more land! Man that's crazy it always seems to work out like that. https://www.palestineportal.org/learn-teach/israelpalestine-the-basics/maps/maps-loss-of-land/
This a shouting man yelling obscenities at those who disagree. I understand the anger and wanting to push back, but attacking a foe one cannot defeat is a recipe for further loss.
Both are good examples of defeats.
It's almost like there's realpolitik consequences for refusing to pacify one's self and sign a peace treaty after losing wars. Crazy. I expect this trend will continue as long as their belligerence does.
To be fair, you don't know they can't defeat them. Vietnam won against the United States. This kind of fascist state can't last by definition. I only hope it implodes sooner rather than later.
Glad you've been on the side of defending apartheid and genocide. Cool chat.
True, but at this point I find it very unlikely. The US wasn't fighting for its right to exist in Vietnam, there is nowhere for Israelis to withdraw to. This conflict is existential to them.
Genocide: if you mean genocide, as in driving people from their lands, Palestinian-aligned forces practiced that as well in this conflict--when their side annexed Jordan and Jerusalem. By this definition you would be defending those who are genocidal as well.
If you mean genocide as in eradicating an ethnic or religious group, that's more Hamas' thing, as I have illustrated above.
Apartheid: you're ignoring all the Arab-Israeli citizens, who are not kept legally separated and have the same rights as every other citizen there. Their existence makes your accusation of apartheid not make sense. This is clearly about safety and not racial discrimination on the Israeli side.
Cool chat.
Alright I was going to disengage but holy shit.
You're going to go against Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Nelson fucking Mandela, among plenty of others, saying it's an Apartheid? Come on, dude.