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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
Only one party is currently illegally occupying land they have legal claim to and engaging in the crime of apartheid. Only one party is engaged in fighting against an illegal occupier. That you choose to argue in favour of the apartheid regime engaged in an illegal occupation says enough.
Do they have a legal claim to it? If they stole the land it shouldn't matter how long ago it was right? That's the Palestinian logic I'm seeing.
Who? Israel? No, they do not have a legal claim to the occupied areas, or they wouldn't be occupied. Both irrespective of the occupation, the crime of Apartheid is a crime against humanity under the Rome statute.
The Israeli Supreme Court has ever since 1967 consistently accepted the Israeli government's own contention that the territories are occupied, and not part of Israel proper, because if they were part of Israel, then Palestinians affected by Israeli oppression would have far stronger legal claims.
So if you want to argue that the occupied territories belong to Israel, you're arguing against the position of both Israel the state and the Israeli Supreme Court.
See "The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel", David Kretzmer, Professor Emeritus of International Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, published in the International Review of the Red Cross, 2012
I'm simply applying the logic the Palestinians apply. There were ruins of a 2000 year old Jewish temple and a 1500 year old mosque in the region. Guess which one is older. I'd also feel more empathy for the apartheid conditions if Palestinians would stop electing a political group who's stated goals are the deaths of every Jewish person. And as I said it's comical you keep saying I support apartheid policies by simply stating killing, raping, torturing, kidnapping, and forcing innocent people to be used as human shields is fucking wrong and deplorable no matter what side does it. If Ukraine starts liquidating Russian cities and raping, torturing, kidnapping, and using innocent's as human shields I'd say the same fucking thing to them and pull my support. If this is how Palestine wants to do things I shed no tears as they are destroyed. "By any means" works both ways.
This might be relevant if it was a Palestinian state imposing apartheid on Israel. If so, they would be equally worthy of condemnation irrespective of who had which historical claim to what land.
But they are not, so bringing it up is yet another attempt at victim-blaming.
Had Israel stopped at a point of doing the bare minimum to secure its legally recognized borders, or indeed the borders they themselves recognize, and attempted to avoid oppressing innocent civilians for decades, there'd likely still be conflicts, but then Israel would have something of a moral leg to stand on. They have not. They do not. As it is, they are occupiers, as recognized by their own government and their own courts.
Hamas didn't even exist until a couple of decades into the oppression. It was formed as a result of the failure of PLO to get Israel to the table, so this is blaming the victims again for responding to decades of Israeli unwillingness to end their oppression.
Also, notice how in contrast to your repeated talk of the Palestinians as a unified group while assigning blame, not once have I tried to blame the Israeli people as a whole for Israel's actions, despite the fact that a majority of them have elected governments in every single election for the entire existence of their state that have continued a policy of illegal occupations and apartheid?
I stand by that. Just like the Palestinian people as a whole can not be judged for the actions of Hamas, neither can the Israeli people as a whole be judged for the actions of the Israeli state.
Are you going to do the same, or are you going continue to assign collective blame to people including the millions on either side who have no power whatsoever to influence the actions of any of the belligerent parties and/or who oppose them? Including the millions in the West Bank who are largely cut off from even being able to intervene in what goes on in Gaza due to Israeli apartheid policies beyond the control of Palestinians in the West Bank.
When you criticise only specific and limited outcomes of the oppression rather than the oppression itself, then, yes, it's natural to presume you're fine with the oppression. Notice how even here you only express opposition to the killing of innocents, and not against the imposition of apartheid or the illegal occupation that created the conditions for it over multiple generations.
If your support for opposition to oppression is contingent on the oppressed doing no wrong, then you're really just looking for any excuse to side with the oppressors.
My support for the Ukranian people, as for the Palestinian people is unconditional. That does not mean I support every action made on their behalf. I do not. That does not mean there aren't actions I find deplorable. It does not mean I don't sympathise with innocent victims.
It does mean that in an asymmetric fight the oppressor is the only side that has the choice of ending the oppression, and until they do they have no moral standing to complain when some of their victims lash out in desperation - the oppressor is ultimately always the culpable party for every consequence of their oppression.
Anything else is to create an incentive for oppressors to be extra brutal in order to provoke an extreme response, knowing that if they do, they'll have people like you ready to dismiss the plight of the entire oppressed population because some of them were pushed into a level of desperation where they've gone too far.
You can write total novels of nonsense we don't even need AI.
Your revisionist history is laughable, I suggest you learn about the actual history of the region and what you're claiming being complete and utter nonsense. Beyond the fact Israelis have holy sites predating Palestinians, beyond the fact Palestine has lost multiple wars over the area, beyond the fact they agreed to a 2 state solution in the 90s then reneged and attacked Israel, beyond the fact they elect a genocidal government that will only bring themselves ruin, beyond all that to your last point, you are correct. When you cut toddlers throats and rape Innocents who have NO SLIGHTS AGAINST YOU, film it for fun plus have genocide as your prime governmental policy I give 0 shits about your plight regardless of what pushed you there. You deserve to get pushed around by the people you have a desire to wipe off the face of this Earth. To quote the bible, "live by the sword, die by the sword."
Ah so you're a fuckin Zionist, GOT IT. I knew I smelled fascist.
???? I'm an atheist lol.
Let me ask you though, is it okay killing toddlers regardless of which side does it?
Yeah I fuckin fully support killing toddlers no matter the situation it's always okay.
And Zionism isn't strictly religious, it's a settler-colonial movement/project.
Your blood and soil arguments are entirely irrelevant to the point that Israel itself does not make the extremist claims you're making. You keep recycling this despite its total lack of relevance to the argument. And in doing so you're aligning yourself with a tiny minority of the most far-right extremist fascist-adjacent Israeli parties.
Again you're collectively blaming a population, the majority of which were not born when the Oslo accords were signed (look it up; 65% of the Palestinian population is below 25 years old, and the Oslo accords were signed 30 years ago) for actions a far higher proportion had no influence over.
I'm assuming you don't get the irony in writing this when it can be equally applied to Israel.
Of the two sides, only one has a government actively engaged in what covers a substantial portion o stage 8 of Stantons ten stages of genocide.
This boils down to "it's ok to murder innocents and oppress people and want to get rid of people because the other side murdered innocents and wants to get rid of you". Unless you're an utter hypocrite, you'd apply that to both sides. Yet this "logic" is meaningless if applied to both sides. By your own logic, Israelis deserve to get pushed around because some of them have murdered innocents and because some of them wants Israel to annex all the land (to be clear, despite your argument in favour of collective punishment: they don't; just like Palestinians don't deserve to be collectively punished for the actions of a few either). But if that is the case, you have no moral basis for your uproar over Hamas' actions - by your own logic you shouldn't give 0 shits about it.
Yet you clearly do. So clearly you're not applying that logic to both sides.
You're conveniently only applying it to the Palestinian population, whom you've elsewhere also implied collectively are untrustworthy and likely to try to take over any state who might invite them in.
Again, note how quick you are to be ok with collective suffering for Palestine for the actions of some, while you're up in arms about the suffering of a portion of Israelis for the actions of some.
Can you see how this deeply hypocritical and one-sided demonisation of Palestinians as a people, whom you have elsewhere implied are collectively untrustworthy and a risk of trying to take over, comes across as racist?
Because I certainly do.
I have no interest in continuing to indulge you in your ongoing demonisation of a population of five million people of whom the vast majority has done no wrong other than been born in what is effectively an open air prison where you, to quote you think they "deserve to get pushed around" despite the majority of them never having voted in any violently oppressive government (and that holds for the majority of Israelis too, though sadly not for the majority of the electorate - but just as I don't hold all Palestinians responsible for the actions of some, neither to dI hold all Israelis responsible for the actions of some; have a think about that).
And so I'll shortly be blocking you, so I don't have to deal with any more attempts at justifying oppression of innocents because of the crimes of some.