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
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in how the United Nations describes anything to do with Israel. Their bias is of the charts.
Remember, this is an organization that officially denounced Israel for human rights violations 20 times in one year, and for every other nation on Earth, with all the modern slavery, sex trafficking, genial mutilation, honor killings, murder of LGBTQ, marriage and rape of 7-yr-girls, denying basic education to women, forcing women to fully cover their bodies, mass incarcerations, etc,etc... For all the rest of the world, 6 denouncements.
So yeah, the UN is not a serious organization when it comes to Israel.
Maybe Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch is better.
Amnesty international wasn't the one that faked reports on Russian concentration camps in kherson?
Someone passed Whataboutism 101! Congrats 🎉
I think he's at least at 301.
It's not about whataboutism but about the credibility of the source. A year ago, everybody was taking a shit on amnesty because of its tankie-bias
Gotta link? I don’t know about this.
First please note that i ended my comment with a quotation mark, cause I may very well have fell in plain disinformation propaganda.
There was quite a scandal that aroused from an amnesty report during the last year i presume this is it. The Ukrainian government apparently heavily criticized it and accused them of projecting the guilt on the victims. The head of amnesty in Ukraine's office quit not long after because of it article from Reuters. The Times published its own opinion on that report (sorry for the paywall).
A few days later a few newsoutlets suggested that amnesty based its opinion on Russian filtration camps on interviews to people inside those camps, alleging that those persons could very well be answering at gun point. Everything apparently roots to this article from NV, an ukrainian newsoutlet. I have mixed feelings with this article because they use a facebook post from what they call a 'government channel' as source and i coudlnt find the original post and the channel says loud and clear NGO.
On April of this year, The New York Times published that leaked documents from Amnesty titling it "Unreleased Report Finds Faults in Amnesty International’s Criticism of Ukraine". Another paywall, this link from the guardian abords it.
Here another review on the scandal, but its the first time i see this source.
Thanks. I saw The NY Times article, but couldn’t find much else. After reading about it, that’s gotta be a difficult job to do.
Any organization that calls Israel "apartheid" is comically biased.
Israel is the only country in the region where a lesbian Muslim woman can vote, get an education and hold elected office.
Claiming it's apartheid is like claiming the US was apartheid when occupying Iraq because we didn't allow Iraqis to be citizens of the US.
Words have meanings, and the accusation is demonstrably absurd.
I can't help but notice your only issues here is with how terms are used in regards to Israel and Palestine but not with the bombardment of Gaza in response to a terrorist attack from Hamas. A place where nearly half of Palestine's population lives.
Do you not have an issue with Israel's response or something?
I have no idea who Israel is targeting, but if history is any guide, it is Hamas terrorists.
And Hamas terrorists make it a POLICY to hide among civilians.
For now, I'm giving Israel the benefit of the doubt because they have very much earned it.
Then you were living through an alternate timeline. Israel has killed more than 10.000 Palestinian civillians since 2008 before this weekend. Now they have declared the Palestinians animals when announcing the blockade starving them to death now.
Also they told the Palestinians to flee into Egypt and then bombed the road close to the border crossing.
~~And Egypt has closed their border to Palestinians just today~~
So the situation gets worse and worse
Edit: I was mistaken, their just taking steps to make it harder currently.
I don't dispute your numbers. But Israel has been in a non-stop battle against terrorists who use their own people as human shields. So I put the civilian death toll squarely where it belongs: at the feet of the terrorists.
I've seen ZERO evidence that Israel has ever as a matter of policy targeted innocent civilians. In the contrary, I've seen Israel go out of it's way to send text messages to civilians to give them time to evacuate. I've seen they drop lead weights on rooftops as a warning to the people inside you get out before actual missiles come.
I've never heard of any other nation doing that. Never. They are knowingly letting terrorists escape because it spares civilian lives.
There is no scholarly consensus over the definition of the term "terrorism." This in part derives from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged, "a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents..
For your consideration
Yes. Largely it is the Palestinian conflict that muddied the waters here to begin with.
After 9/11 the world was united in a war on terror, defined as I just defined it. It was in direct response to the evil of killing innocent civilians in that awful day.
And for a while it looks like the entire tactic of terrorism was going to be stamped out. Even the Irish Republican Army vowed to stop using it as a tactic.
But then people looked at the Israel conflict, and their hatred of Israel did not compute with this new war on terrorism, where the Palestinians were clearly the only ones deliberately targeting civilians.
So the anti-Israel people started muddying the waters by throwing around the term "state terrorism" which meant... Whatever they wanted it to mean.. Building a fence. Bulldozing a house. Collateral damage while killing a terrorist. Whatever.
And that's where we are today... Where the anti-Israel people are very happy to muddy the waters to the point where terrorism no longer has a meaning for them. That way they don't have to remember that the Palestinians are the only ones with a policy of deliberately targeting civilians.
You don’t question your beliefs at all, why?
I question them all the time. Never seen a shred of evidence that Israel targets civilians.
And the distinction between that and collateral damage is one of intent, which is absolutely key in determining moral and practical culpability.
At least I tried.
From your own link:
Here we go again with the “double standard” for Israel, said The Jerusalem Post. The soldiers’ testimony—none of which has been confirmed—cited only two “egregious cases,” and neither was a war crime. In one, a sharpshooter killed a woman and her two children in what everyone agrees was a tragic mistake—it merited discussion only because one soldier believed the shooter hadn’t felt “too bad about it.” In the other, an elderly woman was shot as she approached an army position—most likely because she was wrongly suspected of being a suicide bomber. Such incidents are highly regrettable, but they are aberrant: The IDF tries to target only militants. Hamas, by contrast, plants bombs in crowded buses and shopping malls; a large car bomb was discovered at a mall in Haifa just last weekend, and it was mere luck that it malfunctioned and failed to go off. The difference between Israel and its enemies is undeniable: “We don’t set out to kill innocents, and if we do, our society feels anguish. They set out to kill civilians, and when they fail, they’re disappointed.”
You are choosing to be misinformed.
You tried. He's a lost cause. Best you can hope for is that others have read what you put here and see how Floss is wildly bigoted and unwilling to accept it.
Just last year the IDF murdered a journalist. The illegal settlers are getting armed and protected when they assault people and Israel allowed the storming of the Al Aqsa mosque this year.
The human shield argument is also just absurd in its inhumane cynicism. "Oh look we are bombing a densely populated area. So all the people dying there were used as human shields by the terrorists who are also from that area, because we have blocked it all off. Look at what the terrorists made us do!" With this logic you can justify the annihilation of any civilian population, claiming there were military targets nearby.
Israel has every possibility to avoid the death of civillians by going in on the ground directly instead of bombing things to rubble. But that is a tactical disadvantage so they full well knowingly bomb civillians.
They also targeted numerous UN hospitals and medics, killing at least 11 so far in the current campaign. They do secondary bombings onto areas targeted before, so rescue operations are hindered.
These are all actions that speak of total disregard to civillian life and taking away their responsibility from it is absurd. In that reasoning any nation has the right to commit countless atrocities because at some point another nation did it before to them.
Even if Hamas didn't have a policy to hide amongst civilians, do civilians really have a choice but to be close to possible Hamas members? There's 45 square kilometers of Gaza with 2.3 million people. That's 50,000 people per square kilometer that's 51 people per meter approximately. So where the hell can you be in that tight space without being close to 50 or more other people.
That's an excellent criticism ... of Hamas.
If they can't operate without endangering their own civilians by pure proximity, then... don't?
Take the word of some random guy on internet, or an international NGO? Tough call 📞
Or, just use your brain.
Already did.
You go first.