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
Present them.
What did Hamas think would happen when they attacked a nation they are dependent upon for basic supplies? Should Israel keep supply lines open to a nation that is currently at war with them? Hamas, the government of Gaza, is supposed to be responsible for its people's well-being, not Israel, who is defending against them. Yet instead, they use them as human shields and hide in civilian structures.
What really makes it hard to find sympathy is that 74% of Palestinians approve of Hamas even after Oct 7 and Israel's reprisals. It appears this is what they want, as baffling as it seems to me. Outrage alone will not win this war for them. Some hard truths need to be faced.
This would be reasonable if they had more than a snowball's chance in hell of defeating Israel militarily. Today this appears to be a people who refuse to acknowledge their situation, poking the bear over and over again, then screaming about how terrible and unfair it is when they get predictably mauled yet again.
Cool, bring up your arguments to scholars who disagree with this designation, of whom there are many.
Violence against them does in fact justify taking actions to prevent further violence. That's the nature of this conflict. For Israel, it's not about subjugation, it's about safety. The "subjugation" will end when safety is achieved. Normal nations surrender when they lose wars, which is why the wars end.
That's not what justified annexation, the violence against them and the failed wars declared against them did that. Even with the Arab Nationalist violence in Mandatory Palestine, were war never declared they'd have the '48 borders, which would be a significant improvement over their present situation.
I don't find their revisions to be compelling, as this war was caused by a genocidal attack, (intended to destroy Jews in whole or in part.) Statements by Hamas leadership also make their intentions clear.
Constant and popular violence, belligerence, and intifada.
I believe Palestine agreed to said water rights in the Oslo accords.
Military occupation and the rule of law being applied fairly are not mutually exclusive. Israel can certainly do better in this regard but is is certainly possible.
Yes, breaches of said Oslo accords water agreements... I don't know why I bother arguing with wikipedia links and gross misrepresentations of facts. I know that long after occupation ends you will claim to never have supported such atrocities.
You cannot claim it's about safety and rule of law when it's only for one ethnoreligious group at the expense of another's ability of self-determination. If you believe that Jewish people are some magical chosen people who are above everyone else and especially above those savage, terroristic Muslims then that world view makes sense but then you're a religious fundamentalist. There is no self-defense under occupation by definition as they are and continue to be the perpetual aggressor under international law.