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
Honestly they're right. Everyone knows why this is happening and it's because of Israel's genocide in Palestine. The US wants to support that genocide, but that's not China's business.
You meant it intensified; they existed and attacked the shipping route before this conflict escalated.
Also, many people forget the modern West uses retaliation as a tool against terrorism. Basically, if you mess with civilians, you'll face swift and harsh consequences. The attack legitimized a retaliatory response.
That's why it was confusing when Hamas initiated this phase with a terror attack, as Israel would invoke the retaliation card, supported by the USA. Humanitarian concerns become secondary to the objective of neutralizing or controlling Hamas. Crying for more humanity or boycotts won't significantly change the priority list.
The best outcome Hamas could have hoped for with the attack that started this is what's happening now: chaos, more hate, conflict, and the end of normalizing relations between the USA and some Middle Eastern states. They knew Israel would use the "9/11 card," and the USA would allow and support it.
Just to be clear, I neither support any form of "genocide" nor take sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's odd to categorize so broadly and inclusively.
If you believe China's reluctance to participate in these maneuvers is due to the genocide allegations, then it's improbable, considering China isn't known for opposing genocide, (especially against Muslim groups). Practically, what Israel is accused of aligns with China's agenda – acquiring land, eliminating cultures, religions, and populations based on ethnicity. Just because China is more discreet doesn't make it morally superior.
Example here: Uyghur genocide.
If you believe China’s reluctance to participate in these maneuvers is due to the genocide allegations, then it’s improbable,
Yeah that's true. I meant: The US has no grounds asking China for help with "maintaining peace in the Middle East". I'm more objecting to the article's way of putting it, like it does here
China’s disinterest in Red Sea policing role underscores Beijing’s reluctance to back its rhetoric on Middle East peace with substantive action.
While I definitely don't like China, "help us protect our genocidal ally from the consequences of their actions" isn't something I'd expect or want them to agree to, either.
There's no geopolitical or moral reason for China to step out of its yard, so to speak, is what I meant.
Apologies for the misunderstandin of your statement. My bad.
Why do you think China, one of the main trading partners with the West, should not be expected to participate in securing a primary trading route, especially after expressing a desire to play a more proactive role in securing the Middle East?
Certainly, the recent surge in attacks stems from the Israel/Palestine conflict. While one could argue that we all bear some responsibility for reaching this point, the attacks on trading routes are carried out by a third party financially backed by another entity, mainly Iran. These attacks, though related to the conflict, involve non-direct participants, including the ships they target. This categorizes them plainly as terror attacks on a trading route, and there's no need to let it escalate or reach a point where other uninvolved groups might be tempted to join in.
I agree; China's best move for now would be to sit and wait, maintaining distance. It gives them more breathing room. China, especially the CCP, has its interests in mind and isn't particularly interested in helping causes that don't further their goals. More "chaos" in the Middle East is something CCP leaders would likely appreciate.
Why do you think China, one of the main trading partners with the West, should not be expected to participate in securing a primary trading route, especially after expressing a desire to play a more proactive role in securing the Middle East?
These attacks, though related to the conflict, involve non-direct participants, including the ships they target.
These attacks were made with the stated intent of stopping international shipping from reaching Israel. Basically a DIY sea blockade in response to the war in Gaza. The only sane response to America's request here is "clean up your own mess", which is what China did. That's what I'm saying: This is Israel, and therefore America's, mess.
I get your point and understand where you're coming from. I think you're right from a certain perspective.
But I want to add that it doesn't matter that they declared they want to stop shipping to Israel; if the entire trade route is affected, it's just terrorism, plain and simple. Securing vital trade routes and sending a clear signal that this conflict won't spiral is crucial for stability.
Also, this is an international issue (trade route security), not purely an American one. While the U.S. could handle it easily by themselves, it would lead to more significant problems and conflicts in the long run.
I just believe inclusivity is always better than exclusivity.
Chaos in the Middle East would be devastating for the CCP. The existence of China as a modern nation is a dependent upon energy exports and trade which traverses this region.
They don’t have the ability to project power much beyond their first island chain. They certainly could not sustain for any length of time.
There’s no geopolitical or moral reason for China to step out of its yard, so to speak, is what I meant.
It's one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, which China uses to send its goods to the West. I feel like protecting that major trade route would be a geopolitical reason for China to step up. I get that they are currently targeting Israel's allies in the attacks, but sometimes mistakes happen and sometimes rebel groups don't share the same goals as their financial backers.
A good amount of the shipping going through the Strait of Hormuz is between China and Europe. It’s only fair that China do its fair share of the lifting.
I do find it ironic that the CCP systematically opposes the country that patrols and keeps the world’s shipping lanes open for international trade. Trade which ensures the continued existence of the CCP.
The Houtis are targeting Israeli linked ships, not Chinese ships
That is not the strait of Hormuz, grab a map before formulating an opinion on such a complex matter
Why bless your heart. What a wonderfully simple world view.
To imagine that a country which is dependent upon trade shouldn’t have a stake in keeping a trade route with its second largest trading block free from attacks.
It must be blissful to be so unaware of the impact that attacks on that area will have on shipping and insurance.
You must sleep very soundly at night.
🥱
Exactly.
My theory on the Hamas attack is that they mostly intended to take hostages to negotiate the release of Palestinians being held by Israel. They do that all the time. They expected to meet with a large military response and take mostly non-civilian hostages (as they’ve done in the past since IDF soldiers are high value hostages).
But Israel had shifted so much of their security forces to the West Bank that Hamas met with basically no effective resistance and ended up getting further into Israel than they ever planned.
I’m not saying Hamas was above killing civilians. But think we’ll learn one day that they were imagining more like 50-100 civilian deaths to draw a fight and then as many police and military hostages as they could muster. Most of the Hamas fighters probably expected to die just escaping Gaza.
Interesting perspective, but these attacks were different from what they did before. I can see the argument that the Israeli government downplayed their preparedness to make Hamas's attack more devastating than if they had taken it seriously from the beginning. This tactic could then be used to partially legitimize retaliation and the subsequent siege of Gaza.
There are too many factors at play for this to be a "normal" Hamas attack gone wrong. The scale and preplanned targets suggest it was not an "ordinary" Hamas operation.
While I usually agree that the simplest solution is often the right one, do you really believe this was more or less a "normal" attack that spiraled out of control?
I obviously don’t have any insider information. It definitely seems like it was planned to be on a different level than past attacks.
Something else I’ve been wondering about is just how asymmetric warfare is easier now with cheap drones and better weapons. Maybe even satellite imagery since you can just buy it now. Hamas might have always wanted to do something this big and just couldn’t.
My theory on the Hamas attack is that they mostly intended to take hostages to negotiate the release of Palestinians being held by Israel.
Yeah that's usually the case with these. Also add in getting some concessions out of Israel.
Sooo groups of people thousands of miles away from the conflict who have no direct involvement in said conflict attacking the shipping of neutral parties is somehow justified….
Concurrently it is somehow the fault of the US for supporting Israel… even though Israel has no involvement in the state of affairs within Yemen.
That is some amazing mental gymnastics.
It's not "justified" it is "understandable". And yes, the shit that is happening there is a direct result of the genocide happening in Gaza. It also is the fault of the US - seeing how they are able to end the genocide if they wanted to. Still, they don't, with the president calling himself a "zionist" openly.
Sooo groups of people thousands of miles away from the conflict who have no direct involvement in said conflict attacking the shipping of neutral parties is somehow justified….
Uh... Yes, that's exactly the case. The attacks were made with the stated aim of isolating Israel economically. It's very much a kosher war tactic, and to the people of Yemen (or at least the Houthis) it definitely seems like they consider the genocide of Gazans enough of a casus bellus.
The reality is that the Chinese have very limited power projection capabilities and could not help anyone in the Red Sea if their future depended on it.
How can you possibly arrive at this conclusion? There's no evidence for this whatsoever.
The US asking for China's help is also a way of getting China to reveal what kind of arsenal it has at its disposal. China staying out if it makes perfect sense.
This conflict would stop if the US stopped supplying Israel, and condemned them and imposed sanctions on them. Following an Israeli ceasefire, the houthis would have no reason to continue their attacks and the problem would be resolved.