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 !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
If one day someone comes to your house, the one you were born, the same house where your father was born, and his father before him. And starts killing, raping, torturing, executing, bulldozing the houses were your cousins lives, they don't let you go to your sacred places, they don't let you even move from the concentration camps and the walls they have erected.
What would you do? You fight, even if you lose you will fight, even if the world sees the injustice but simply doesn't care, you will still fight, for them you are a terrorist, but for your people you are a freedom fighter, fighting against invaders.
I would agree with this, except that afaik both groups have a legitimate historical/religious claim to the territory. Additionally, you're basically saying that Hamas is justified in slaughtering hundreds of unarmed people. I was sympathetic until they made the Las Vegas shooting look like a minor scuffle.
Seriously, I can sympathize with the frustration up to the point where suddenly murdering civilians is ok when "the good guys" are doing it.
Material conditions my ass, if it's wrong for one it's wrong for all.
And before any Hamaboos show their asses,
انا امريكاني فالاسطيني، جدي كن من بيتلحم،
My kin are not your shield for endorsing the same acts you hold up to demonize those you hate you Bougeyevik hypocrites.
The fact the Israel state contribute to the creation of those monsters, you can't expect the hate to just disappear.
I'm sorry to say, but this is how guerilla warfare goes. Sometimes civilians are casualties.
Did those civilians do anything to deserve it? Usually no. In this case though, they did. Some were already there, and they were responsible for starting the civil war by accepting to split the country. Others weren't there, but came after that - trampling on another country's ashes and disregarding its original citizens.
What are you going to do when civilians move into your home and declare it is theirs? Consider them civilians? Consider them innocents?
I would not beat, rape, and murder innocent people. That seems like a low bar to clear, right? Attacking military targets and personnel might be morally justified, but certainly not what they did over the weekend.
How many of the "terrorists" (the Islamic ones, not the Judaic ones) were actually from the oppressed populations, though? There are a lottttttt of people in that region that hate the Israeli government...Not sure how many of the displaced peoples you're telling "this isn't the right way to avenge violent state oppression" are actually participating in the fighting.
He didn't tell any of the non participants any such thing... His statement obviously refers to those commiting the acts, not generalized to everyone.
That perspective does not excuse Israel's behavior or blame any victim of Israel's injustice, it simply points out the attacks are terroristic (meaning targeting civilians). Terrorists often have sympathetic reasons, but go about it in a way that is wrong.
Point taken, thanks for taking the time to lay it out.
Oh please thats an absurd hot take.
Nah, man. If they cited all those things, or more importantly the complete stifling of Gazans' ability to prosper or flourish today, that would be one thing. What did they cite instead? The desecration of the Al-Aqsa mosque. That is more important to them than the apartheid. Fuck Hamas. They're accomplishing nothing more than the death of Palestinians and more suffering. And they just empowered the most right wing, unpopular government that Israel's ever had, one that Israelis were divided against. Hamas and the Iranian regime need to be eradicated. They are hurting any chance at Palestinian freedom and equality and right to prosperity. And they're just causing more and more every day normal Israeli/Jewish and Palestinian suffering. This Iranian regime supports the tyranny of the Syrian government over the Sunnis (and its use of chemical weapons against them), Russia's terrorist attacks on civilians in Ukraine and the invasion of that country in general, the complete undermining of the Lebanese government by Hezbollah, and the complete overthrow of the Yemeni government by a similarly tyrannical group in Yemen. And it uses of rape and sexual violence and murder against men and women protesting the death of a woman caused by the morality police and the oppression of women by the regime.
I think the only way to accomplish either a true one state democratic nation that honors Israel-Palestine as the home of Judaism or a two state solution, is boycott and divestment (because there is no way to peacefully protest and engage in civil obedience to achieve freedom and equality (they murdered a journalist and nothing came of it) and there's no way to win militarily). It worked with the apartheid government in South Africa, and hopefully it will work with Israel.
If the "fighting" means doing the exact same crimes to other innocents that is not making you the good guys.
Believe it or not, but the world isn't simply comprised of goodies and baddies. We don't live in a Marvel movie.
His point is that if you want international support don't go around murdering innocent people then parade their bodies around.
He didn't imply that Israel were the goodies. It's more like both sides have people being baddies.
Also, you have a lot of innocent on both sides. That's why both sides get called out for being baddies as they are hurting innocents. There's a good chance that Hamas even killed some folks who have never done anything but be sympathetic to the Palestinian plight.
Terroristic is the right description, and can also be applied to some of Israel's behavior towards Palestinians.
'settlers' aren't innocent, colonizer
Israel is doing a genocide. Palestinians fighting back are absolutely not doing the same crimes.
Hamas are absolutely headbanging murderous zealots committing a lot of atrocities right now. But if you herd people up, deprive them of basic liberties, brutalize & kill a bunch of them, and steal their land at gunpoint and then you can hardly act all shocked that a bunch of them are radicalized and go on a rampage. Doesn't matter if we're talking what Israel has done to Palestinians or what the United States did to Native Americans. Maybe the lesson to learn here, is don't do those things. But I expect that Israel will pound Gaza committing its own atrocities as payback and the same thing will happen again in another decade.
Why leave out the fact that the Jews also have an equally legitimate claim on the land, in addition to having been taken close to the brink of total extermination by circumstances completely beyond their control? A normal, compassionate individual would welcome these people in, make room for them, and live at peace under a stable society, tolerant of different points of view. However, that is not what the Jews encountered upon the creation of Israel. It was just a continuation of the campaign to exterminate them, from a different group. Are you going to argue that it's bad for Germans to murder Jews, but it is okay for Muslims?
The Israel state was created thanks to the influence of wealthy Jews.
Until your guest started asking for more land, more control, and ultimately doesn't want yo share with you but wants the things you have.
The Jewish people who were brought to Palestine in the 40s were not being exterminated by the Palestinians. The Jewish people illegally collected guns while they were there and forced the Palestinians out of their homes and their country.
If you go a little further back in history you'll discover some pretty heavy historical claims to the land by the Jewish people. Just to be clear, I consider "historical claim" to be the most bullshit geopolitical argument in existence. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy in claiming Palestinians have claim, but Jews do not. Palestine wasn't even a country until it was established when Israel was established. It was just a bunch of nomads moving between various borders.
Just curious, if some fascists came to your house citing historical claims to your land, how much would you care about the validity of that claim? How about when they burn your house down, kill your family, and arrest you for objecting? I truly, deeply would not give a flying fuck who lived nearby my house 300 years ago.
Have you asked the Jews that question? You might discover why they keep fighting over the land.
How much further back is a "little further"? My grandmother was one of the people who fled in 1948. The place her grandparents also lived. You're talking about what 300 years ago? 400? More? Forgive me if I care very little about a claim to a land that is older than Shakespeare.
I don't care about a "historical claim" I care about the people who were living in the land and were forcebly ousted in a time frame where the people who were originally ousted are still alive.
Also they were not "nomads" you fuckin racist. My great grandparents had land, a home, a community that were all taken from them.
You're making an arbitrary claim as though it's objective. Why is displacement in 1948 justification for historical claim, but expulsion in 1917 not? Beginning 1914 during WW1, many Jews were expelled from Palestine by the Ottoman authorities as enemy nationals, since they had immigrated from countries now at war with the Ottoman Empire. In 1917, the Ottoman authorities carried out the Tel Aviv and Jaffa deportation, expelling the entire Jewish civilian populations of Tel Aviv and Jaffa. Many deportees subsequently died from hunger and disease. Surely those Jews have just as much claim to live in Israel as the Palestinians displaced by the 1947 UN partition plan.
The 1914 deportations were of Russian Jewish people. If any Russians claim they have rights to the land then sure, I'll buy that, but I don't care for one's religion and I don't believe the Jewish people who were brought to Palestine in the 40s were of Russian descent.
Only 1/3 of the population that was deported in 1917 were Jewish. The rest were Muslims and Christians and had nothing to do with religion. Under British rule all the people deported in 1917 were allowed to return. So they got their claim when they were allowed to return, it really is unfortunate how many died due to the conditions they were sent into, and I'm not defending the actions of any State.
Russians being deported and people who were allowed to return makes those claims barely anything compared to the Palestinians who were ousted multiple times in the last 100 years and not allowed to return, with the ones remaining living in apartheid.
This sounds like you're defending ethnic deportation. It doesn't matter which passport the Jews held. They were expelled.
I am clearly and specifically talking about the Jews, not the Muslims or Christians.
But they were not given their land and houses back. They were displaced, just like some Palestinians in 1948.
I'm struggling to believe you could argue the ways the Jews were treated is better. If anything, it was much worse. The Palestinians have never been wholesale deported, only displaced within the same nation.
I'm only pointing out that the deportation had nothing to do with their Jewish heritage.
And I'm clearly and specifically pointing out that it had nothing to do with them being Jewish so it is very different from what was done to the Palestinians which was targeted at them.
Just like the Palestinians were displaced in the late 1800s by the Ottoman empire selling the land they lived on to Jewish people.
Half the Palestinians living there were forced to flee their homes in 1948. I'm clearly not arguing with someone who lives in reality as evidenced by this line
If by some you mean 700k compared to the 10k total displaced in 1917 (of which only 1/3 were Jewish) the sure I guess more than 70 times can be considered some, but at that point words mean nothing and there is no point in continuing this discussion.
I'm sure it's as straightforward as you make it to be.
It is. You really don't think so?
It's not. History never is and it'd be worth understanding how we got to this place.
The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 is a good place to start. Essentially much of Palestine was misappropriated to Ottoman bureaucrats and the Ottoman state. The Jewish National Fund purchased portions of this land and leased it to Jewish settlers who kicked the Arabs out with the cooperation of their Ottoman landlords. Legal, but unjust, and I have to imagine most of the Jewish settlers were as ignorant as the Arabs were to the fact that their land had been sold out from under them.
As a side note, if you want to spot the Press that are at least trying to be neutral, you can see how they refere to the Hamas people that inflitrated Israel:
They are terrorists. That's literally what they are. The fact that attacked an evil fascist state's city doesn't change that.
I'm happy that everybody who kills people to terrify the rest into doing what they want are consistently called terrorists.
So both Hamas and the Israeli state.
As actual and clear acts of "killing people to terrify the rest do what they want", like bombing of hospitals, murdering of journalists and killing children throwing stones at the armored bulldozers razing their homes, all commited by one side, have consistently never been described as "terrorism" (even though they match the definition), it's a pretty good indication of the bias by a media outlet when they now describe the entirety of the military incursion from one side and all its participants as "terrorism" even though they refrained to call actual acts of "killing people to terrify the rest do what they want" from the other side as "acts of terror" and those who executed them as "terrorists".
The unbiased thing to do is to consistently describe all "attacks meant to incite terror for the purposed of making the rest do what you want" (such as Hamas' terrorists murdering people at a dance party, and Iraeli Army terrorists bombing hospitals and executing journalists and children) as "terror attacks" and those who executed them as "terrorists".
Israel can't be called terrorism because terrorism must be—by definition—unlawful
Emphasis mine.
As Israel did their deeds outside internationally recognized Israeli territory - so outside the internationally recognized jurisdiction of their courts - hence were Israeli Law does not apply.
So those deeds were unlawful (no matter how much Israeli Law is rigged to say otherwise), and even by that twisted definition you selected of "terrorism" that defines it so that state-sponsered terror attacks on a nation's own soil do not count as "terrorism", Israel's military attacks on civilians anywhere outside the internationally recognized borders of Israel (so including Gaza) for the purpose of intimidating the population are still terrorism because the Law that does apply there says they're unlawful.
Wars are by definition lawful. Sorry you're wrong
It's also not a twisted definition. It's the literal dictionary definition that all countries use when defining terrorism.
And no, if war time acts were not lawful, all war is terrorism which it isn't so again you're wrong.
Sure, there is no such thing as the Geneva Convention and there are no such things as War Crimes and its all above board if the people controlling power in the country doing the deeds tell their parliamentarians to write down that "it's all legit!" in their own country's legislation.
War crimes are explicitly not terrorism by definition. If you need a basic high school education though there's hopefully a public school near you. This subject and topic is covered under civics.
What if it was a tornado? Do you still fight it to your last standing men or do you accept the fact that you can’t win?