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
We've hit the point where people are only trying to save their own asses from any type of future justice. Justice that will hopefully come before they are all dead.
It is a positive shift. Don't get me wrong. But what we are seeing right now has not done anything yet to improve the material conditions of the people of Gaza or Palestine as a whole.
These western leaders and scholars are trying to form a narrative that can be looked back at as "the point" in which they stood up against the genocide. But (1) that point was 19 months ago and (2) they aren't actually doing anything to stop the genocide.
We cannot let history see them in a good light. These leaders and scholars have known exactly what has been happening for the last 19 months. You can't spend 19 months denying the acts of genocide and only finally come to the conclusion once Gaza is reduced to ruins and it's entire population is starving. That not what genocide scholars are meant to tell us. They aren't meant to tell as after the fact. They are meant to learn from history and call out these things long before it is allowed to reach this point.
And many of them did. But if you're a "genocide scholar" and you're only now coming to the conclusion that this is genocide. 19 months after real scholars correctly pointed to it. You are not a scholar. You are a glorified record keeper.
Unfortunately the university academics are not government leaders.
All of them have been agreeing that Israel is committing genocidal acts pretty much since month, if not week, one. Then the scholarly debate started on whether the sum of genocidal acts already constitutes genocide proper. It's one of those cases where scholars make distinctions that activists don't like because activists like simple narratives, punchy slogans, clear-cut lines, as opposed to getting bogged down in nuance.
I'm not saying that activists are wrong calling it a genocide, I've been predicting that the Kahanites are going to use the opportunity on day fucking one, but it's also not right to expect scholars to lower their standards, simplify their analytic framework. There's a good reason why they apply metric tons of nuance to everything.
A livestreamed genocide where the perpetrators were unapologetically genocidal since day 0 and with the 100 year history of colonizing Palestine, any "genocide scholar" who was held back by their standards was a glorified record keeper, waiting until it's widely recognized as a genocide before labeling it as such themselves.
And you're white-washing their cowardice as scholarly integrity and standards. Bullshit.
That's evidence of a genocidal act, and of intent of the precise perpetrators. It does not, on its own, prove that Israel, as opposed to merely those people, are guilty of genocide. Israel could, for example, have brought them to justice themselves.
Upholding things like the presumption of innocence and due process does not preclude me from shouting "stop the thief". As said: I've been doing that since day one. Yet, when dragging that thief before court, I'd still expect the court to actually look at the matter in detail. Those procedural hoops exist for good reason: Justice cannot be served by mob rule.
Israel didn't even arrest thr nekba zionist terrorist. Israel just scape goat some low level soldiers to act like israel crimes are not systematic
And that has to be established, instead of just assumed... If you're a scholar or judge. Activists can and should just assume it given that there's plenty of circumstantial evidence.
You don't want activist scholars or judges because then you don't have scholars or judges any more, is all I'm saying. Leave the activism to the activists.
How can anybody seriously believe that it is not established. Anybosy who deny the genoce is in a certain level complicit
Judges. Scholars. Neither operate on the assumption of guilt, but assumption of innocence. And there's a very fucking good reason to do that, to see what assumption of guilt does to a people simply observe how the Israeli right considers Palestinians: Guilty unless proven otherwise. You can't fight barbarism by succumbing to it.
There is zero assumptions of guilt here. Only hitler was as clear as israel about genocide intents. Denying the genocide at this point is like denying the holocust when it occured. Human right reports and idf themselves filming themself comiting crimes show that the intent is also applied on thr ground
You are simply doing genocide apologia here
I have been calling what Israel is doing a genocide like four or five times now. In this very thread. Watch where you're aiming.
There is a difference between a prosecutor calling the accused a murderer, and a judge calling the accused a murderer. Can you follow me this far.
If the presecutor has all the necessary proofs and still refuse to acknowledge the genocide then he is complicit in it and you defending him for that is genocide apologia even if you don't realize it
And the judge, before all evidence, all arguments are in, the prosecutor has been heard, the defence has been heard, the defender has been heard, and everything has been deliberated with other judges? Would you also require of them to call it a genocide the day the prosecutor brings the case to court?
All what you said was done. The icj despite all the evidences proving it still decided to not say definitely that there is a genocide. With their ruling no country has obligation to do their best to stop israel occupation and agression. Do you want the genocide to be admited a decade after it happened just like with the bostnian genocide declared as such after 12 years?
Because they do not have the evidence necessary to rule that way. Mostly, yes, because Israel is rather uncooperative, and the ICJ can't just raid Netanyahu's office.
All countries have that obligation no matter what the ICJ rules.
This is not about "admitting", or "strongly suspecting", or "preponderance of evidence", but "beyond reasonable doubt". Proof should only be declared when it's actually bullet-proof.
As said: Otherwise, you leave an attack surface for genocide deniers, they'll spend the next 1000 years talking about "The antisemitic conspiracy that managed to frame Israel for genocide, here, have a look, they suspended due process to come to that conclusion". Don't play into the hands of those assclowns.
They have all the bullet proof evidences, the hell are you talking about are you a zionist under cover or just stupid?
What for you would be a bulltet proof evidence?
The icj is simply politically influenced
How often do I have to say that Israel is committing genocide for people to stop calling me a zionist? It's getting tiring.
It's abundantly clear that parts of the Israeli administration, the IDF, are guilty of genocide. Expanding that to the whole state of Israel, proving intent and not just mere incompetence at stopping rogue IDF elements, will probably require access to files and protocols Israel is withholding...
... and from the activists' perspective, a political perspective, that withholding is proof of guilt, for a court, it's more complicated. Before court, there's stricter requirements: The ICJ cannot follow the the political assessment not because it's politically influenced, but because it's not political. Because it can't make that kind of snap judgement.
When you stop claiming that the icj is ignorant of bullet proof facts that are undeniable i eill believe you are not a zionist or someone with bad logic.
What is more clear about it being state level then natanyaho the head of the israeli state compating palestinians to amalek thrn you got tbe soldiers themselves shouting the same thing, human right reports of targetting civilians, letting infants decompose and even video of shooting animals excatly like what it been said to happen in the amalek story?
Or i don't remember which one ben gvir or smotrich sating no food should enter then it is what happened. 2 months without any aid entering gaza?
Or what about the ethenic cleansing plan that was leaked?
The ICJ is very well aware of all of that IIRC, most of it was even in the opening statements.
And, as said: Politically, that kind of stuff is damning, it's proof. For the judiciary, though, things are more complicated. They have to do more legwork to do until, at some point, they also come to the same conclusion, as the genocide scholars have done, and the scholar's judgement is way more bullet-proof than the political judgement I gave a month or two in that yes, Israel is falling to fascism, yes, they're committing genocide. And the judge's judgement will be even more bullet-proof. But it's going to take time to actually prove things to that kind of high standard.
I have enough of your excuses. You just repeating again and again the same idea with different wording.
If the genocide get completed no amount of oh it was complicated would change anything.
Have a nice day.
Agreed. But the failure is with the political reaction, not the courts. Courts aren't the police, the police is the police, and the police is asleep.
What is this BS. If you do genocidal acts like blocking aid for 2 months you are comiting genocide. No such a thing as genocide proper and genocide not proper.
Genocide is a serious war crime that when declared all countries has the duty to do all they can to stop it. Declaring a genocide late is like detecting a cancer in the latest stage. You don't want a genocide to be declared a decade after just like it happened in Bosnia
That's not what I said. There's a difference between genocidal acts and genocide, same as there's a difference between breaking a promise and fraud.
Yes we want exactly that, because genocide needs to be proven thoroughly because otherwise deniers have an attack surface. But we also want to intervene much earlier. Those two things are not at odds.