this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
248 points (77.1% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2243 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] crapwittyname@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Just wanted to point out a few factual inaccuracies in your comment.

  1. This is no longer a justified conflict. A state has the right to self defence in a limited way. The right to self defence does not override the rules on collective punishment. The right to self defence does not include the right to invade a state where the enemy is a terrorist group within that state, rather than the state itself. The right to self defence does not override the rules on attacking civilian infrastructure (especially ambulances) even where there is suspicion that a terrorist organisation may be using it. The right to self defence does not override the rules on forcible relocation or blockade. In short, the response to an enemy using a human shield must not be to eliminate the shield. It's astounding that so many people seem to need this explained to them. This is borne out by international law, cf. the UN charters.
  2. Israel did not do everything they could do to avoid this conflict. The one thing they had to do was to abide by the Oslo accords, yet they have built settlements in Palestine every single day since signing, and restricted Gazans every single day since signing. The two state solution has failed as a result of Israel's actions. In terms of actions since October 7th, the usual way to go about dismantling an embedded terror organisation is to use counterintelligence, ground ops and precision strikes. The reasons are obvious, I hope. The only way to get those hostages back is either by freeing them in covert ops or by negotiation at a political level. Destroying entire city blocks from the air will not get the hostages back, as we all know.
  3. The label genocide is not misconstrued, according to the UN genocide experts. Some say there is a grave risk that this is a genocide, based on the available facts, and some say that it already fulfills the criteria.
    I can provide sources for all of my claims, if you'd prefer not to do the legwork yourself.
[–] SCB@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Lol literally none this si accurate

How do you write so much and get everything wrong

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It's literally all verifiable and true.

[–] crapwittyname@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is accurate, and I can back it up with data. Is there anything in particular you think is incorrect? Or are you just annoyed with it in general.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Literally everything you wrote is wrong so yeah, start anywhere.

[–] crapwittyname@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok let's start with this one:

"Israel has built illegal settlements in Palestine every day since signing the Oslo accords"

Go ahead. Prove that wrong.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"Wrong" isn't so much the right word as "heavily misleading." Here's a good deep dive for why no one adheres to Oslo.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/13/oslo-accords-1993-anniversary-israel-palestine-peace-process-lessons/

If you'd like to actually say anything meaningful, that would be fun. Snark doesn't get you anywhere when someone knowledgeable is in the discussion.

[–] crapwittyname@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ok so everything I wrote isn't wrong.
It's telling how you're accusing me of snark, when that's precisely all you've provided so far. Well, that and a rambling opinion piece on the Oslo accords in support of a tu quoque fallacy. And of not saying anything meaningful when I clearly made three substantive rebuttals above.
Cheers

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You've made 0 rebuttals to the fundamental fact that your claims are intentionally misleading, and thus falsehoods.

[–] crapwittyname@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

It doesn't work like that mate.