view the rest of the comments
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
Reddit probably rotted my brain, but I'm struggling to determine how this is anything but "everyone sucks here." On this matter, I don't think anyone has been truly in the right in a century. Can anyone provide a convincing argument otherwise?
I think he's trying to get around the black and white viewpoints, and bring up the idea that Israel is committing war crimes here, which is outside the Overton window on the subject currently in US politics.
Exactly. One does not do politics and convince their opposition if they don't use conciliating language.
Nah, you can go through the comments here and find people taking the easy, position here too. "Bombing kids is bad, so Israel is bad, so Palestine must be good, therefore I support Palestine." No nuance, no attempts to look at a more complex situation or consider anything other than the most basic information.
Both sides suck, both sides will happily commit war crimes, and civilians on both sides are getting hurt. One side is getting more hurt than the other, but that's just a difference in capability, not belief.
Stupid Palestinians fighting against colonists for the right to exist on their own land. DAE both sides?
How does this argument work when it comes to Russians in Crimea?
Both Jews and Palestinians have claims to the area as "their own land."
You may note that when Russia invaded Crimea, the West did basically fuck all about it. Russia invaded it and so Russia has kept it. You wanna play that argument, then Israel gets to keep everything they got in '48 and '67.
If you're arguing it's Russia's to take "back" because Crimea is part of Ukraine which used to be part of the Soviet Union, that's also not a great argument. Ukraine's borders were accepted and recognized internationally. By that token you could argue Palestine should be able to "take back" all of their territory to the '48 borders, and Israel was content with that border at the time. The Arab nations weren't happy with that in the first place though, which is why they tried to wipe out Israel.
So maybe you argue that it's the pre-1948 border they should be able to "take back," and it should all just be one state, like Mandatory Palestine as it was under British Rule. Except neither side really wants a one-state solution and obviously the elimination of the entire Jewish people is not a good one.
You can keep going farther back and claim that it was all Ottomans anyway so only those who have really lived there since the 7th Century have a claim (ie. Palestinians). Of course they're only there because of the Rashidun Caliphate, so why stop there? If we push back farther we should really give the region to the Greeks. If they pass we can give it to the Italians, and if they pass, oh look, hey, ethnic Jews have a claim to the area before even Rome showed up.
Now obviously, the modern Israeli government is tremendously overreacting and the West should sanction them to hell until they return to the table for a two-state solution (or any solution both sides agree on), Netanyahu is gone, and Palestinians are given their own recognized state. Palestinians need support, aid, and the backing of the globe to push for their rights as a country. But Hamas is not necessarily going to get them that either.
When are we giving Native Americans their land back?
Jews have zero claim to that land. There are original Palestinian jews and the israeli government is literally racist against them. This has nothing to do with ancestry. The israelis are mostly Eastern European or American jews. There is a good reason why Netanyahu looks so much like Putin.
israel's borders are not accepted at all. Only countries half way across the globe from them accept their borders.
The only just solution is a one state solution with the returnal of the Palestinian land to the Palestinians. Just like the returnal of Crimean land to the Ukrainians.
Crazy how people are actually defending colonists as if they're now rightful owners to land because they've been committing genocide for long enough.
70 % of the Jews living in Israel currently were born there. And about 20 % of Israelis are non-Jewish Arabs.
More than half of the Jews in Israel are Mizrahi. Your theory of European colonizers populating Israel is factually incorrect.
It's the official policy of many of the most powerful nations of the world that only Palestine sucks here and that Israel can do no wrong and must be supported unconditionally. An "everyone sucks here" position would be much closer to the truth.
Palestinians and Israelis are overall fine, except when you have to listen to them talk about each other, it's their governments that are so fucked.
This entire conflict is a story of overstepping state entities victimizing innocent civilians on both sides of this war nobody but them and their cronies wanted.
The victims. They are in the right. But they have no voice. Ironically though, as toxic as social media is, governments can't get by with the same shit that they did 50 years ago (Sauce: US in Central America).
Here is a 2 minute video about being able to hold the idea that Hamas and Israel are both in the wrong and civilians are getting hurt on both sides as a result.
https://youtu.be/L0Zb9iUi0JM
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/L0Zb9iUi0JM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It's not true that civilians are getting hurt in Gaza because of Hamas. They were already being killed off before the attacks.
I think that's basically what he's saying with more words. You're not wrong in this case, but the "everybody sucks here" line is most often used by people who don't actually know the details of what they're talking about, but need to have an opinion on the record. (Other recent example being the Ukraine war situation)
In my opinion, this whole situation is too drunk guys who got in a fight over something stupid. Palestine got knocked out early, and so Israel is being vilified simply for being the one still standing, but now Palestine has got up and kidney punched Israel while it was turned away, and people are rooting for the underdog since they got back up. The problem with this, and the reason that Obama is speaking the way that he is, is because people seem to be forgetting all of the other horrible things that Hamas has done too, because they're currently the crowd favorite.
So yes, everybody sucks here, and I think people are having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that, sometimes in a fight, there isn't actually a 100% good guy. It's just too drunk guys getting in a fight over something stupid.
Agree or disagree with other people's opinions, so be it. But this comment is such a unearned hand waving away of other people's thoughtful comments/opinions made on the subject, and it's not a true representation of what's going on.
Your analogy assumes some sort of equivalency between the two drunk men, but in reality there's a huge discrepancy of power between Israel and Palestine, one so vast that your analogy comes off as reductive. It's not just "two drunk guys in a fight", it's more like a drunk guy and a child, which the drunk guy has been picking fights with since the child was born, and all of the drunk guy's friends keep helping him beat this child up.
There's a power discrepancy now, but there wasn't always.
By this analogy, Palestine is a drunk 17 year old, who along with a bunch of 20-something friends jumped one another kid when he just turned 18. Except the 18 year old won the fight and the older pals of the original drunk kid have backed off. Beaten to shit, the 17 year old keeps trying to swing at the 18 year old, who continues just kicking him while he's down and everyone is looking on in horror but unwilling to jump back in the fight.
The fact they went 1 v 8 probably contributes a lot to Israel's absolute unwillingness to not put themselves in a position where they are less powerful.
I see where your coming from, and I suppose I should clarify: in this case, the reason that I invoke the simile, is that the original reason for ALL this drama, is religion. There is more than enough physical space for them both to live in the region happily, but because this is the Land of Israel that we're talking about, they both claim exclusive right to it, and only one can have it.
Events since this original issue obviously can't go overlooked, but it all stems from this unreasonable unwillingness to share plenty.
It's a tale as old as time. Just like the Hatfields and McCoys. They've hated each other for so long neither side remembers what started it and both sides have a list of grievances longer than they can keep track of and the score can never be settled. It's to the point where there is no right side; both are wrong. You can make arguments that one side is more wrong than the other, but I'm not in favor of a "let the least wrong win" approach. Both sides are objectively wrong and both sides must stop.
This is simply not true. Palestinians were copacetic before the British mandate, the Balfour declaration, the declaration of the state of Israel and the Nakba.
"It's complicated" is a constantly used rhetorical strategy by those in power to put off moral judgement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxC5HhKQ5ks 80 second video. This situation isn't complicated at all.
Michael Brooks is missed. Great name btw.
I truly do think that Islamophobia and the United States having a lot of historical and economic ties to Israel are why we've allowed this to go on unchecked for decades.
Public opinion is definitely shifting in favor of Palestine though.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=RxC5HhKQ5ks
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Just come to your own conclusion
Thanks. People want to pretend this started a month ago and not understand the history.
Because the truth is that Israel is WAY worse than Palestine. They're openly calling for genocide. Resistance to oppression is good, actually, and so basically whatever Palestine does while still being oppressed is morally fine, while Israel continuing to oppress them is not. Anything anybody says criticizing palestine's reaction to oppression is whataboutism, because they're literally the victims of genocide.