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.
-
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 !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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
The hostages seem like the only bargaining chip they have (not that it's much of a bargaining chip), so I'm surprised they're doing it. Maybe they've decided that it isn't worth it.
Probably frustration and despair. If your bargaining chip can't get you a bargain, all they're worth is 'revenge' against your opponent.
What a fucked situation.
Thinking on it, it was probably also costing them what are now valuable resources to keep them alive. When it's near impossible to get in and out of Gaza, food, medicine, etc. are worth their weight in gold.
So instead of letting them free they murder them?
Why would they let them free when they consider them the enemy?
Because now they'll be pursued for the rest of their life. Free a hostage and you have essentially a get out of jail free card.
There's a genocide on buddy. They already were.
There wasn't a "genocide" on Oct 6th.
Do you really believe that any member of hamas would be safe just because they let some hostages go? How would that work? Should they surrender themselves to the IDF while delivering the hostages, just notify them of where they are so they won’t be bombed or how would that all work?
Israel has tip lines set up for Hamas members and members of the Gazan public to call. You call and say, "me and my boys will have an unspecified number of hostages at x location at y time and are looking to surrender. Then you show up at that time with those resources and surrender.
Are there any examples of it being used successfully and the aftermath of it? This is a genuine question stemming from my own ignorance on the subject. I would really like for that to be a good way of handeling situations where hostages are released, but I could easily understand why a member of Hamas might have reservations if they do not have reason to trust the system.
If there is good reason to trust it I will agree that that would have been a viable and good way out and should have been used.
Yes, every so often a news report comes out about individual Hamas members and cells surrendering. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=individual+hamas+members+surrendering+to+IDF
Unfortunately I am still unable to find any stories that tells what happens to the Hamas members after their surrender. I’m unsure if they get treated well or are sent to the same facilities in which there are reports of human rights violations amounting to psykological and physical torture.
I did find some examples of successful surenders, but nothing where hostages were explicitly mentioned to have sweetened the deal of surrender.
I do believe you may be right but I have been unable to verify it myself.
With their countrymen reportedly dying by the thousands in their behalf. They should surrender en-mass anyway. They've been defeated. Prolonging the war only prolongs the suffering.
If you don't have the resources to provide for your POWs, the correct solution is parole, not execution.
Hamas are terrorists. They work through terror.
How would you propose safely paroling them? There's already examples of released hostages then being killed by the IDF.
Any type of parole has to be at least marginally less dangerous for the hostage than execution.
Historically you've shipped them to a neutral nation (like Switzerland) who negotiated their return to their home country on the condition that they not be allowed to rejoin the war effort either for the duration of the war or for a specific time.
None of these things are solutions that haven't been seen before.
I put as much faith in this as I do the hospital tunnel story.
Anything the IDF says is to be treated as bunk without at least 2 corroborating sources. The IDF lies like they breathe, so I'm more willing to assume they killed the hostages to make Hamas look bad than anything they actually say.
It's entirely possible this is total nonsense, but I could also see them realizing that keeping them alive was an exercise in futility and, as I suggested in another comment, a waste of precious resources like food.
Oh, don't get me wrong, it could maybe possibly be true. We're just getting it from a serial liar, so the message is untrustworthy on its face.
I'll be extremely saddened if I'm wrong here, because those people didn't deserve this. But given Israel's long history of blatant lies in the name of PR against anything Palestinian, I'm not going to believe it until a credible source backs up their statement.
Israeli history isn't even a necessary consideration. The messaging of any warfighting party should always be taken with appropriate caution.
If someone is willing to wage war to achieve their goals, some propaganda efforts are certainly not out of the question. Factuality cannot really be confirmed until after the war is over, and the area becomes safe for neutral parties to visit. Active warzones are just not fountains of factual and verifiable reporting though.
Depending on how recently they were executed, it makes perfect sense. As the one holding hostages, you want to set the precedent that the only way to get them out alive is via negotiation.
They died recently enough for the bodies to be quickly identifiable. No DNA tests necessary or anything apparently.
Hamas is trying to keep as many alive as they can.
But (a) 2000 pound bunker busters don't discriminate between Palestinians and Israelis and (b) if the IDF comes too close to the hostages, their guards have to decide whether to let them go alive or to kill them.
In the case of the Druze guy, I can definitely see Hamas choosing not to kill him. But in cases of Israelis who also served in the IDF, the rational choice is to kill them instead of giving the IDF a propaganda win.
And finally, sometimes the IDF probably accidentally kills them and tries to blame Hamas if they can get away with it.
This is a war crime. You can't execute POWs just because the enemy is getting close to the POW camp.
They aren't combatants or PoW, taking them hostage was a human rights violation from the beginning.
But Israel can't really expect Hamas to follow Geneva conventions when they themselves violate it a hundreds times as often.
This is a massively false statement. And it's one that should make you reconsider your viewpoint from the ground up.
I don't know if a more incorrect statement could be made about this conflict.
Is Hamas even that disciplined to act as a unified front? Management or soldiers on the site could've decided themselves to take a revenge on hostages. Especially if they knew they are cornered and there were no use of keeping them alive if they are deadmen too.
Based on accounts from hostages who have been freed, Hamas is at least more disciplined than the IDF
Probably because they knew that rescue forces were coming, so they killed the hostages so that hopefully, they don't try to rescue more hostages.