this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
518 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19556 readers
3960 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

After receiving the text for the ad quoted above, a representative from the advertising team suggested AFSC use the word “war” instead of “genocide” – a word with an entirely different meaning both colloquially and under international law. When AFSC rejected this approach, the New York Times Ad Acceptability Team sent an email that read in part: “Various international bodies, human rights organizations, and governments have differing views on the situation. In line with our commitment to factual accuracy and adherence to legal standards, we must ensure that all advertising content complies with these widely applied definitions.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] the_three_tomatoes 1 points 3 days ago

For example, reading the articles, it’s impossible to determine if you just read 10 articles about 10 different events, or 10 articles about the same event, because the articles don’t include enough detail. Yet, if people read the same headline then times, they’re going to think it must be true. I’ve gotten into it with people here on Lemmy where they tell me how wrong I am and just look at all these examples of Israel doing a thing, and then they post three examples all talking about the same one event and they don’t even realize.

First off, thanks for the very detailed reply!

This is a very important point. Any numbers can be inflated. When early Zionists committed the Deir Yassin (?) massacre, many Palestinian freedom fighters inflated the real numbers to fear-monger others to join them in their fight. Some also downplayed the numbers for their own reasons. This is one of the things I've learned recently just reading about the history of this long conflict. Very interesting!

That being said, I've also come to understand that many evidence is video based and can be geolocated and confirmed using landmarks and so on. I doubt that they will only present their case using news articles with no footage/video evidence.

I totally agree that a history of war crimes doesn't mean Israel is committing all of them 🤣

However one thing that stood out for me was not having allowed adequate aid in. On one hand, Israel says it's providing enough aid. On the other hand, the UN and every other organization are talking about some of the difficulties of getting aid in and some decisions that Israel has taken sound ridiculous though! I read they didn't allow dates in, and many everyday items were branded as "dual use" and banned from entering (like scissors!!).

To me the news reports are too chaotic to make a case against Israel, but the throttling of aid entering while also conducting military operations at every single hospital in Gaza could, in my opinion, be strong indicators to use in a case against them at the ICC. Of course I know Hamas operates often from the midst of civilian crowds, but whether they were there in the hospitals or not may not play such a huge role because in the end a large number of civilians were harmed and life-saving and essential infrastructure was destroyed by Israel. It doesn't look good for them even though I understand why it was necessary.