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 [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
It seems contradictory to me to say it has always been pursing genocide, when one of the elected politicians was moving in the other direction for years. A bit selective.
Perhaps we could look at the voter tallys in 1996, where Netanyahu won 1,501,023 to 1,471,566, and the events that were influencing the Israeli public at the time? It certainly doesn't help when there's 14 suicide bombings happening in Israel between 1993 and 1995 during the peace process. Being bombed generally does drive people towards militarism.
Regardless of the past, though, Israel is there now. With its nuclear arsenal, it will not be destroyed any time soon unless Iran somehow nukes it off the map through its missile defense. So, negotiation seems necessary.
The issue isn't Netanyahu. Well he's a compounding issue but the core problem is that everyone but the leftest of lefties stopped believing in the peace process after Rabin's assassination. As the Haaretz said: Yigal Amir won. The right-wing approach to security, "antagonise Palestinians into submission", never got challenged by anyone since Rabin's death. Maybe it'll now get challenged as October 7th happened on the right's watch, so obviously they can't provide security, but don't expect the Israeli people to realise that in a fortnight, so far little is happening: The press is self-censoring because they know no Israeli wants to even look at what the IDF is doing in Gaza and the West Bank, protests are about Netanyahu's corruption (which is pretty much the only thing distinguishing him and Gantz, not politics) as well as families of hostages complaining about the Kahanites being more interested in killing Arabs than getting their relatives back. It's not (necessarily) the war they're opposed to but the priorities.
Yeah and what did it result in? Same thing as every other "negotiation" from the last 75 years, More Genocidal Nazis slowly taking over Palestinian land while the Palestinians have to wait for the "peaceful negotiations".
The only difference between past israel and current israel is that current israel got so arrogant that they are forgetting to hide their Nazism. They are now flaunting what they have been doing for the past 75 years thinking themselves so much in the right that nobody will disagree with them.
Pretending that israel has ever had good-will to come to a peaceful conclusion is pure delusion. Israel is an Ethnostate deeply rooted in Apartheid. You cannot create an Ethnostate pecaefully just like the Nazis weren't peacefully expanding their Lebensraum.
nuance won't hurt you, I promise <3
Do we look at the Holocaust with nuance as well? Should the Jews have tried to negotiate with Adolf Hitler?
When someone decides to do Ethinc Cleansing to create an Ethnostate it's Nazi-O-Clock. All nuance goes out the window.
somehow, at some point in the conversation, the word "nuance" here has become double speak for Neo-liberal-style negotiations. but yeah, big picture, it’s Nazi-O-Clock!
I'm not sure about this ethnostate claim, when over 20% of Israel's citizens are of Arabic descent, and are not required to have Jewish heritage or faith. They can vote, own business and have the same legal protections as non-Arab citizens. These are not in Gaza or the West Bank, but living in Israel's internationally recognized borders.
Unlike in pretty much all other countries in the World, Israel separates Nationality from Citizenship and there are more rights on the latter than on the former.
Further, uniquelly in the World Israel has different kinds of Citizenship such as Israeli Jew Citizienship and Israeli Arab Citizenship and the former has more rights than the latter.
As with every other piece of hasbara propaganda, those massive bollocks you're parroting are a meaningless façade for external consumption that hides the reality of a State were Apartheid is so deeply entrenched that by law non-Jews have a second class kind of citizenship with less rights than Jews who have a different class of citizenship.
They're both said to be Israelis (as there is but one nationality) and if one ignores all the rest they're both as you say "Israel's citizens", they're just de jure different kinds of Iraeli citiziens with different rights and, as I said in the beginning, most rights there are linked to Citizenship, not Nationality, so for example Israeli Arab Citizens can be denied the right to live in certain places whilst Israeli Jew Citizens cannot.
And to preempt the usual hasbara response to this disclosure: those Arabs don't live there because it's such a great situation, they still live there even though they are second class citizens because they've always lived there as they were born there on what was their family's land before it was stollen from them.
This idea of a difference between nationality and citizenship is admittedly new to me. Can you provide a citation to a reputable source that explains it in more detail?
Israelis are not alone in using propaganda, so a neutral source, preferably. Or the law itself, I can run it through a translator.
Actually I was a bit wrong (I had been told this by others but only research the details now to provide you with references) so here are the corrections:
And then of course there are plenty of sources refering to Israeli Arabs being treated as second class citizens, such as this Bloomberg article
PS: I also remembered how some of the details I listed above, such as how Israeli Arabs can be refused license to live in certain places, came from a Documentary I saw on TV years ago. If I remember it correctly it's done via a scheme which is a bit like "housing associations" but for for larger areas (towns?) were people have to apply to them to be allowed to go live there and in many places Israeli Arabs are simply never accepted so they can't go live in those places.
Thank you.
That Haaretz article is saddening. I cannot in good faith blame Israel for not giving citizenship to people who do not want it and don't apply for it, but reading some of the excuses they gave for denying applications is telling.
Here guys, have this banana 🍌 reward for a civil and informative discussion thread.
Was the documentary “Roadmap to Apartheid”?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
“Roadmap to Apartheid
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I don't think so but can't be sure since Youtube curiously requires signing in to see that one which I refuse to do.
Sorry. Tried to find it free or through piped, but it’s a no go. Might try the library.
Israel's own law states that it is an ethnostate. One of it's foundational laws reads:
Furthermore, two million Palestinians live within pre-1967 Israel borders with the ability to vote. Three million Palestinians live under military occupation in the West Bank. Two million Palestinians survive in what was an open air prison and now is one big death camp. All Jews, including those in the West Bank, enjoy full rights.
More details of the racial inequities:
That clause C is fairly damning, I suppose you're right. While that law seems to be fairly new, the law is the law.
Even the roots of Israel are established in violent acts of what can only be described as terrorism. Of course one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Israel is one of the main originators of the car bomb. But you can read more about the Irgung gangs and terrorism committed by Israel's founders if you choose.
Buda's wagon was, in essence, the prototype car bomb: the first use of an inconspicuous vehicle, anonymous in almost any urban setting, to transport large quantities of high explosive into precise range of a high-value target. It was not replicated, as far as I have been able to determine, until January 12, 1947 when the Stern Gang drove a truckload of explosives into a British police station in Haifa, Palestine, killing 4 and injuring 140. The Stern Gang (a pro-fascist splinter group led by Avraham Stern that broke away from the right-wing Zionist paramilitary Irgun) would soon use truck and car bombs to kill Palestinians as well: a creative atrocity immediately reciprocated by British deserters fighting on the side of Palestinian nationalists.
And there it is. From "israel wasn't always trying to steal land" turns into "well israel not really an Apartheid state".
Three comments further and I'm going to read about how there are no innocents in Gaza.
No, there are certainly innocents in Gaza. However, there are also innocents in Israel. You may have chosen your side, but I am not fighting in this war. Frankly, it's consistently been too difficult to determine the truth.
edit: Actually, that's not true. I find I do get involved in the information side of the conflict, except I have to consistently fight against both of the sides. It's very troubling.
Last time I checked you were claiming israel is not an Apartheid state so you might want to work on that information thing a bit more before providing insightful comments
If you can find me an unbiased assessment of it, from people that acknowledge Israel's claims to exist by its 1967 borders and for people of Jewish descent to move to within those 1967 borders if they want, I happily will.
Is the UN a high enough standard.
Not on its own, no. The UN is composed of members, and its personnel can come from anywhere and be of any opinion.
There is no such thing as a single perfectly reliable source. The UN is better than most, but its still composed of people.
This, however, is:
A former Israeli AG can be presumed to be both knowledgeable, and have a pro-Israeli bias, so if they are being critical of Israel then that is very credible. Several other cited sources are credible as well. Thank you for sharing that.
I have no idea what this comment means but the goalpost is floating 500 feet in the air right now.
It means I'll read any information about Israeli Apartheid policies from any Zionist-neutral source. I will, however, be very wary of anti-Zionist sources or pro-Zionist sources, unless the source is being critical of its own position.
I'm not foolish enough to think there's a side in the war that won't lie.
I understand it is a high standard, but it's the same goalpost I had to begin with. I'm neither pro-Israeli, nor pro-Palestinian, I'm just loyal to good factuality as best as I can find it, and I'm loyal to peaceful co-existence and a two-state solution, preferably by the 1967 borders.
don't know if this will be helpful or not, or even what you asked about but:
Wikipedia, Israeli citizenship law says the following:
the policy makes a distinction of Jews and non-Jews and says getting a citizenship requires a different path based on your religion. also, "Actually I was a bit wrong ... so here are the corrections" by u/Aceticon