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
The fear of being labelled an antisemite has worked very well for silencing opposition for decades now. I guess Bibi thought that tactic would continue to work no matter how vile his government and military acts.
Oops.
I’m glad that tired, old trick is getting the skepticism it deserves. Even the slowest among us are realizing that if you’re discussing a non-denominational issue and being called “antisemitic” for it, then maybe the accusation is bullshit. Human rights should not be a religious issue.
It seems to be happening almost in real time. I was called an antisemite several times just a couple of months ago for expressing outrage at what Israel is doing. I don’t see that accusation being thrown around nearly as much recently.
It worked (and works) to head off criticism of the Israeli government because so much of the time there are antisemites whose supposed criticism of the government is there to mask hate.
But Netanyahu isn't Judaism. He's just a guy, and as a fallible human being he has made enormous errors of judgment and engaged in ludicrously unethical behavior.
It’s less effective because it’s a classic example of the boy who cried wolf. If you’re grouping people who are appalled by Israel’s conduct with actual antisemites then the accusation of antisemitism loses credibility.
We should have never listened. Excusing blatant crimes against humanity because the country doing it was made up of the different group that was the victim of a horrific genocide of the previous century was clearly a mistake in hindsight now that the circle is complete and they have become the genociders themselves. Every argument that Israel somehow special, that deserve to be treated differently was clearly a mistake and we must never repeat this mistake.
I no longer even recognize the word. It has no meaning any more. The funniest part is that it's the liberal left that destroyed it. We've always known that the fascist right hates Jews; now thanks to the whiney liberal left we don't fucking care any more.
I don't really see how. Surely it's the people slinging that word around to try and shut people up that destroyed it?
Because liberals and some leftists are also Zionists.
Now is "Zionist" the new word you call everyone you don’t like. I practically don’t get why people are so much against the fact that Israel exists. It’s reasonable to criticize some Israel's actions but why so many are against it’s existence.
Probably because it's a colony state, acting like a colony state. Oppressing the locals and acting like the victim when the locals inevitably lash out. Then using that as an excuse to take more land.
That's not what Zionism means
What exactly does it mean then? I adhere to the cambridge's definition: "a political movement that had as its original aim the creation of a country for Jewish people, and that now supports the state of Israel"
It means an ever-expanding state of Israel with zero regard for borders or neighboring nations. It is the root of all the violence, oppression, mistreatment, and downright murder of Palestinian people including their women and children. And I for one am fucking sick of paying for it.
Zionism never asks for the disrespect of international law. Whilst Israel illegally occupies undisputed territories (and I condemn these actions), they fully respect the borders. You will not find a single jew in gaza, neither in Palestinian-only villages.
Ethnostates are inherently immoral, regardless of which race they are. Everyone should be treated equally under the law, regardless of race. Nobody should be a 2nd class citizen, apartheid is immoral.
And that's all before counting the ongoing genocide.
In Israel, citizens are equal. Muslims and others have the same rights as Jews. If you are talking about Palestinian people as "2nd class citizens", then you have to realize that they are under Palestinian administration. That's like calling Germans 2nd class citizens of France.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/human-rights-watch/
It is an ethnostate, by definition it does not treat people equally.
You also conveniently ignored the fact that they are committing genocide.
Yes because israel is not committing genocide. Simply by the numbers of deaths it does not fit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
I read that article and Israel is not committing genocide even in part.
How many Palestinian civilians have been killed?
How many bombs have been intentionally dropped on civilians?
Which exact escalation are you talking about? If about this one, it’s probably more than 20k. What does it prove though?
Judging which bomb is purposefully thrown on civilians is impossible.
See above definition on genocide. If thousands of dead Palestinian civilians (~50% of whom are children) isn't enough to be labeled as genocide then the definition you are using is a bad one.
Are you saying that when Israel bombed the Jabalia refugee camp, they were not intentionally killing civilians?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/18/israeli-airstrikes-kill-80-in-palestinian-refugee-camp
Most of those deaths happen due to the lack shelters and lack of places where people can hide. If Israel wanted to genocide Palestinians, they would have done it in a week. Obviously you will have more civilians killed in a crowded city area than somewhere in a field. Also, they would not have to be dead if Hamas didn't start this.
Regarding the refugee camp: it’s more of an approach where they no longer try as much to limit civilian causalities as much as possible. There was also one of the main Hamas commanders in that camp.
..and the bombs landing on their heads.
Not all genocides are done with equal fervor.
This was started in 1948 when Palestinians were forced from their homes. Playing a game of "who started it" doesn't justify anything.
Yeah... almost like they are totally OK with killing civilians (genocide).
Of course there are bombs falling on Gaza when they organize a terrorist attack. Literally everyone was expecting this type of response. How should Israel respond? I get that there are unused ways of minimizing civilian deaths but every response would be quite dramatic.
I agree that genocides have different flavors but the results of all is a completely or partially removed ethnicity. By saying partially, I mean roughly 40% killed or moved to a detention facility.
And I also agree this started in 1948 but rather when Israel declared its own independence and all Arab countries attacked it. Arab countries lost and the exodus was a direct result of it.
You know, it's the same with almost every escalation. Arab countries (or now Palestine, respectively Hamas) attack Israel, they lose and then they cry that Israel is bad to them.
Seems like you already know the answer to that question. Yet for some reason you're giving Israel a free pass for killing civilians. So effectively you're just arguing for terrorism. State terrorism, but terrorism nonetheless.
Good people don't kill civilians.
The definition of genocide contains no percentage threshold. You're making definitions up out of thin air.
It’s impossible not to kill civilians in such a conflict when the area you are fighting in is a densely populated city. However, I condemn that Israel is also using non-precision weapons.
Of course genocide is not defined by numbers. However, all genocides should have some traits in common. These traits present in every other genocide such as mass population lost are not present in the Israel's conflict.
But it is possible to not drop bombs on areas you KNOW civilians are at.
This is also not a part of the definition of genocide.
Civilians are pretty much everywhere alongside Hamas members who are usually between them.
Yes, it is not a part of the definition but the common traits of all genocides definitely directly follow from the definition. Hence why all registered genocides are in fact similar to each other. Israeli actions wouldn't be similar to any of them.
Yeah, so maybe they should stop dropping bombs.
Not only is this not true, but even if it were, as I've already pointed out it doesn't need to be similar. A genocide can be totally unique yet still fall under the definition of genocide.