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
Define anti semite
Not kissing Israel's ass presumably
Israel is objectively in the right in the war but I'm afraid that defining anti semite could mean anyone they don't like
Why do you say that they're in the right? Serious question and not being confrontational. I really want to know what people think about this whole thing.
Europe was a pile of smoking rubble after World War 2 and they didn’t want to deal with all the Jewish refugees displaced by the war. So they used a Bronze Age fairy tale as an excuse to drop an entire country in the middle of somebody else’s country in the Middle East and steal a bunch of land from the people who had been living there for centuries, if not millennia.
Therefore, Israel has a right to exist. QED.
Also, many Jewish refugees did not want to return to countries that had handed them over to the Nazis.
A bronze era fairy tale? It historical fact that Jews lived in Israel for thousands of years and built all the cities from there.
Jews started immigrating to Palestine in the 1800s and it's that point that many of the current arabs immigrated as well as the Jews developed the land. The arabs did not care if a Muslim immigrated from Iraq but were against a Jew from Iraq because they are fascist.
At the behest of arabs the British who controlled Palestine restricted Jewish immigration, and yes WW2 refugees lived in camps in Cyprus for 5 years because no one would take them. That is why there had to be a specifically Jewish state. In 1948 the UN partition plan taking a small piece of Palestine for a Jewish state where arabs could live freely and equally and not be displaced was accepted by the Jews and the arabs went to war over it.
Jews are the natives of the land, it is so asinine that Muslims who have entirely Muslim countries from Morocco to Pakistan would be in hysterics over this thing. You see the way they destroy historical artifacts in Afghanistan, Iran, these are the most belligerent, fascist and anti semitic people.
What other example in the world is there an example of people who are native to the land being barred from living there?
This guy gets it.
Putting the Jews in Palestine was racist AF. They should have been given Germany. Its just the Europeans didn't want them in Europe.
The Jews weren't put there, they went there because that is the land they are native to. The Muslims for a long time had racist laws against Jews immigrating but allowed Muslims and even forced Muslim groups like the circassians to immigrate.
If the Muslims in Palestine are so offended by having the native people of Israel live there peacefully and generate tremendous wealth, why on earth should Western countries accept the Muslim foreigners who hate the west, are criminals and live off welfare ?
This did not occur
It did tho.
Imagine trying to pretend that Palestine didn't exist just cuz colonial England said "this is ours".
It's like saying Vietnam wasn't vietnamese when the French "owned" it.
Statehood is not relevant in the context of forcibly moving ppl from their generational homes.
The British Mandate of Palestine (which was not a state), arose because of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Palestine has literally never been a country, in all of human history. There were Jews living there at the time, too.
The only people who have ever seriously tried to make Palestine a country are the Israelis (and by proxy the US/UN)
Gaza and the West Bank were parts of Jordan and Egypt, lost during the 6 Day War, so even then the area we call Palestine wasn't Palestinian. Israel gave them the territory, and was under no obligation to do so.
Again being an officially recognized state has nothing to do with it. You act like colonized people have no inherent right unless the UN recognizes them as a state. That is not only false but laughably absurd.
You've created a completely arbitrary rule that demonizes Arabs for really racist reasons.
Palestine was recognized by the people who lived their as theirs. For thousands of years. Doesn't matter if it was ottoman or England. Those Palestinians were there until English decisions pushed them off the land.
Those are facts u can't dispute.
You said they took over someone's country, and that never happened. I certainly didn't bring up a factually-incorrect point and argue against it.
This is an extreme oversimplification that also denies there were many ethnic groups in the region. There was no "Palestinian" identity for those thousands of years.
I strongly support a two-state solution and Palestine becoming a country for the first time ever. Hamas does not.
Now you're just being pedantic. Yes in 1948 what was considered Palestine wasn't an official country as recognized by the UN.
Again. None of that is relevant.
The people who were there were forced out to make way for a un recognized "state."
You're pretending like it's ok because the UN didn't recognize this area as a state already...despite the fact it was widely recognized by everyone else who actually lived there to be what we now call Palestine.
You could make the exact same argument for how the Germans treated the Jews... Makes you realize you're the bad guy here doesn't it.
This is fuckin ridiculous man.
Some light reading, that may perhaps educate you on the significantly longer and more complex situation that you like to pretend - like the fact that the area was majority Jewish before Israel existed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel
I'm not sorry the Ottoman Empire was dismantled. Though their culture impresses me, the rest of their history does not.
Keep siding with apartheid
If you knew what apartheid meant you'd know how fucking dumb that line is.
Consider actually educating yourself. It's not hard.
No one cares what people who side with oppressors think.
I'd say the basic position, without trying to start a big argument, is that regardless of historical grievances, Israel exists and is not going anywhere. That doesn't mean that its oppression of Palestinians is justified or that settlements in the West Bank aren't counterproductive to peace, or that they haven't committed terrible atrocities.
Be that as it may, none of that can ever excuse what happened three weeks ago. No amount of legitimate grievances can ever justify intentionally slaughtering hundreds of innocent civilians, and given that those attacks were explicitly organized by Hamas, who has the violent destruction of Israel and murder of its citizens as an explicit goal, Israel is justified in eliminating Hamas from ever being a threat again.
That does not mean that they have the right to just flatten Gaza and murder all its residents, which, it needs to be said, it easily could do and is not doing. However, while they certainly could be doing much more to protect the lives of Gazan citizens and should be criticized for not doing so, their fundamental aim of eliminating Hamas and forcibly de-militarizing Gaza is legitimately justified.
Ultimately, a two-state solution is the only realistic path towards some kind of peaceful co-existence, and that is impossible when you have a party like Hamas that is expressly opposed to the existence of Israel and takes action to indiscriminately murder its citizens. Again, that doesn't mean that Israel hasn't also done objectionable things as well, but what it hasn't ever done is drive the IDF into Palestinian villages and start shooting every man, women, and child they see.
Essentially, I support actions that make peace more possible and oppose those that don't. There is no world in which Hamas is part of a productive path to peace. Similarly, I'm also extremely opposed to West Bank settlements and have next to no sympathy for the people that voluntarily move there. They only really began in earnest once Likud gained power, and Likud is also a party that has no real interest in moving towards peace (though thankfully, they're absolutely toast once the fighting is over). However, the lands that were attacked three weeks ago have never been claimed by any Palestinian government and have been recognized as Israel's since 1949.
That's roughly the general liberal pro-Israel approach I see. Likud is bad and needs to go. Israel does a lot of bad things and needs new government (a sentiment shared by a good half of Israelis). Hamas are literal terrorists and absolutely have to go. If you have any genuine questions to ask that isn't just accusing me of being a genocidal maniac, I'm all ears.
Thank you for your well thought-out response. This whole thing is a little overwhelming for me and I'm still trying to inform myself to figure it out. I see horrible from both sides in the news and also good arguments for both sides in the comments. I'm hoping some insight goes a long way!
Btw, before I get flack for being a centrist, which I'm not, I feel this conflict needs an unusual amount of nuance. I'm also thinking that maybe I don't need to take a side when neither party wants peace. It's tough.
This doesn't get described as the single most intractable geopolitical conflict in the world for nothing!
You're absolutely correct that it's an extremely complicated topic with legitimate grievances on all side. If you want to learn more, I'd just suggest that you make sure to get exposed to narratives on both sides and be retain a healthy amount of skepticism towards any news that comes out and towards anyone that attempts to "simplify" the conflict by stating that their side is unequivocally right. There are some people - on both sides, I might mention - that will say that any attempt to draw attention to the nuance and complexity is simply a conspiratorial effort to erase their obviously correct narrative, and this is obviously not done in good faith. Whenever someone is talking about the conflict (myself included!), always ask yourself what's actually motivating them to say what they're saying and try to figure out if they're legitimately attempting to observe events as they happen and describe them or if they're simply trying to push an agenda that they've already decided is correct.
Also, if I'm correct that you don't live in the region and it doesn't meaningfully affect you, just remember that you don't actually have to have an opinion on every geopolitical conflict in the world! There's much much more to life than politics, and you'll actually lose your mind if you try to learn every detail of every conflict in the world. There's nothing wrong with simply hoping that all sides manage to find a peaceful solution and moving on to touching grass or whatever it is normal people do.
Your comment's great!
But every single time a two-state solution has been pushed forth, Palestine and the Arab League have refused and declared war (which they lost, twice).
This response by BraveSirZaphod really resonates with me, Israeli secular Jew of Russian descent.
Because if you know the history you know that it is the pals who are belligerent and have instigated every conflict guided by islamic fascism, that their can be no non Muslim nation in the middle east (and later on for the world)
Obviously Jews have a reason for living in the land, Jews are the natives of the land , you can see in Jerusalem there is a mosque built on top of the Jewish temple, I don't think it's hard to figure out who the colonizer is.
Most of history is reaction to another thing... But if you look up the 1948nparririon plan you will see that Israel was willing to accept a tiny Jewish state on land which was largely uninhabited and the inhabited part Jewish. The arabs went to war against it under the premise there can be no Jewish state. Preceding the state of Israel there were laws against Jewish immigration and discriminatory laws against Jews in every Muslim country.
Palestine was not a nation in any sense, there were many groups of people and one side of the land had nothing to do with another. Jordan was part of Palestine as was given the the 'heshimite' family which is not from there and no one seems to mind.
So it is clear the opposition to a Jewish state on any form is based in bigoted Islamic fascism, I don't know how this couldn't be clear to someone when you see what the Muslims have done to Christians in Lebanon and syria, Hindus in India, and to each other in the Syrian cival war, iran-iraq war etc...
You can see over the years Israel has made many concessions for peace, offered Palestinian states many times, has RESTRAINED military responses. What steps have the pals ever taken towards peace? They receive millions in aid and use it to build rockets. How asinine can you be to claim to care about the 'history of the land' and seek to exclude Judaism? Jews are the natives of the land, arabs and islam are from arabia. It would be like being in genocidal hysterics over indian reservations.
The people supporting pals are Islamic fascists and slogan yelling clueless teenagers
I like saying something controversial then not responding
Oh look... somebody running interference for a genocidal white supremacist colonialist state.
Ho hum.
gottverdammt*
Showing off Nazi symbols. Which already is illegal
You dislike jews because they are jews.
A seven year old could figure that out, or shit, read wikipedia idk...
They are asking which way the minister wants to define the term.
The fucking same I would presume, most likely looking it up in a dictionary
Given how often the term is being misused lately, it's a fair question. The Israeli embassy started a campaing against the mayor of Barcelona trying to frame her as an antisemite because she took symbolic measures to denounce Israel's crimes against Palestinians back in February. Plenty of European politicians just don't want to speak with honesty because they don't want the bad PR of being the target of this kind of attacks.
How would you derive that someone "dislikes jews because they are jews"? Do you listen to them talk and make a decision following your gut? Do you make an MRI image of their brain and measure their brain waves to read their mind?
You would have to work with their past actions. And then it becomes non trivial to define "anti-semite".
So it is not really about "what does the word mean" but "how do you decide who fits the definition and who doesn't". People are concerned about this because it is very hard to make a law that 100% only fits to the people you want to target (leaving asside wether the principle is correct or not).
What in the fuck are you even talking about? Do you have the same issue identifying a racist? Do you need to MRI scan a KKK members brain to be sure if they are racist, do a deep dive into the background? Goddamn some of you on lemmy are fucking stupid...