this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
644 points (97.1% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2226 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A German foundation has said it will no longer be awarding a prize for political thinking to a leading Russian-American journalist after criticizing as “unacceptable” a recent essay by the writer in which they made a comparison between Gaza and a Jewish ghetto in Nazi-occupied Europe.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 61 points 11 months ago (5 children)

I wonder if in 100 years we'll be looking at Israel like we look at Nazi Germany nowadays.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well, if history is indeed cyclical, then in a 100 years Palestinians will have their own ethnostate and oppressing a different peoples. My guess is Kurds. /s

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Not likely. Conjuring new nations out of former colonies isn't really doable anymore.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In a 100 years it might, after our current world order has been consumed by the effects of unimpeded climate change. There's hope yet for the Palestinians to have a go. /s

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

Damn, I forgot about climate change. I don't do that often these days.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

You'd think supporting the west supporting Nazi's comitting genocide would never be doable anymore yet here we are.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago

In a couple decades we'll pass a non binding resolution condemning the genocide of Gaza and pat ourselves on the back for doing the right thing. Then we'll pass another military aid package for Greater Israel.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago (3 children)

The difference is that this time USA supports the fascists

[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This time?

America supports whoever we think will benefit us the most geopolitically lol. Israel is a centerpiece in the MENA which can't really be ignored for how much pressure they put on their neighbors.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

There hilarious thing is we've got way more invested in Iraq these days.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I've got some bad news.

The US was fully prepared to support the Nazis right up until it looked like they'd probably lose the war.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Do you have a source for that? I tried searching but didn't seem to find what you're referring to.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago

I think they're talking about American Nazi party involvement in the 1930's (sources in the comment below the question) at the time leading up to America's involvement, not necessarily official American foreign policy.

it's certainly an interesting revisionist question (i.e. if America had been on the axis side of the war), but it's definitely a-historical.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee is about all I can find in a few minutes.

Apologies, for not having more or better.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

That talks about a group of around 800,000 in a population of over 132,000,000. That's not exactly "the US".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I call bullshit. Why was the US supplying weapons to all of Germany's enemies starting in 1941 (months before Pearl Harbor)?

Americans mainly wanted to avoid siding with anyone because they saw the war as a European conflict they didn't need to be involved in.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You're right to call BS: I provided no supportive evidence. I'll try to do so.

The US "dealers of death" '(a precursor name of the military industrial complex) were happy to sell to anyone who was buying. Commercial support is only relevant as a source for lobbying.

The (strictly non-interventionalist at the time) US government officially wanted to avoid involvement in a war as a belligerent. That doesn't preclude sympathy within Congress or amongst the people for either side. The popularity of "America First" and Lindbergh in particular demonstrate that.

Germany was compelled to declare war against the US because of Pearl Harbour, the US' declaration was just reciprocation. The US, now busy in the Pacific, entered the European theatre only after operation ~~barbossa~~ barbarossa, noting that Germany had already made its fatal strategic blunder and was weakened from its battle of Britain defeat.

The Wikipedia articles have good sources and are well edited. They're a good place to find entry points into the histories.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Everything you just said is correct as far as I know, but I don't think it supports your original statement. The US was acting like Switzerland, which is scummy as hell when one side of a conflict is clearly in the wrong, but that doesn't mean the US waited until Germany looked like it was losing. I'm not that much of a WWII scholar, but I was as a kid, and I wouldn't say Germany was clearly losing until after the D-day invasion in mid 1944. That's certainly the position assumed by popular portrayals of WWII, such as Jojo Rabbit and Downfall, to pick a US example and the one German one I know.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I wouldn't use Hollywood as a source. What sells well to the American public? America winning the war.

In British media, it's the battle of Britain.

I imagine Soviet media would show it as operation ~~barbossa~~ barbarossa.

But yes, scummy as hell.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Barbarossa. It's Operation Barbarossa. And again, you continue to ignore the political reality that at least two giant constituencies in the US had very good reasons for not wanting to get into the European war. In a democracy, their views could not be ignored, no matter what others may have thought was the right thing to do. As I constantly find myself repeating to people on lemmy, winning an election doesn't mean that you get to do anything you want, it means that you can probably do some of the things you want and will have to compromise on others.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

That's me falling afoul of auto correct. I'll edit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

True, it's not a real source. But I think it says something when media from both sides of the conflict paint the same picture.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

My point was that the allied countries' media doesn't present the same picture.

Of course axis media will paint the picture of their defeat as a late as possible, new player introduction; rather than incompetence in high command.

One must evaluate the source's Providence, motivation, etc.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I have more chances of going out with emma watson than the nazis had chances of winning that war.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There's a pre/post battle of Britain and pre/post harry potter thing in there somewhere.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

My chances go getting out with emma* went down the hill after harry potter, i get your point and I think its pretty valid

*point of reference is 2023

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

They would have had a pretty damn good chance if they had stayed neutral with the soviet union. I don't think even American involvement could have stopped them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

Bullshit. The pro-Nazi elements in the US were never anywhere close to being a majority and were never close to implementing pro-Nazi policies. At worst, the US government was guilty of remaining neutral and continuing to do business with Nazi Germany, but that's a far cry from supporting the Nazis. This is pure revisionist tripe.

It's also worth mentioning that at that time the two largest ethnicities in the US were Irish and German immigrants or their immediate descendants. With the famine still in living memory and Irish independence still relatively recent, Irish-Americans were very leery of joining the war on the side of the UK, while German-Americans obviously weren't necessarily keen on fighting the country from which they'd immigrated. These two constituencies were far too important to be ignored politically, and that's a huge part of why it took the attack at Pearl Harbor for the US to do the right thing.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

100 years from now the MENA region will be uninhabitable due to climate heating and I doubt that anyone will want to visit it in some spacesuit.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's not what any of the worst case scenario in climate studies I've seen seem to think, what are you basing it on?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

For the lazy, it's their 6th, 7th, and 8th links.

Projected Air Temperature Extremes and Maximum Heat Conditions Over the Middle-East-North Africa (MENA) Region | Earth Systems and Environment

Climate change projections for the Middle East–North Africa domain with COSMO-CLM at different spatial resolutions - ScienceDirect

Climate Change and Weather Extremes in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East - Zittis - 2022 - Reviews of Geophysics - Wiley Online Library

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

This one also is relevant: Greatly enhanced risk to humans as a consequence of empirically determined lower moist heat stress tolerance | PNAS

Parts of the Middle East and the Indus River Valley experience brief exceedances with only 1.5 °C warming.

We're going to start seeing that in about a decade. You should imagine scale and intensity growing over time.

You should also consider migration at least within the region. That's not easy to model, but you can start by looking at the role of climate heating and drought in Syria.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Just posting a whole big pile of stuff and saying 'the answers probably in there somewhere and you can't disagree until you've been thought it all' is something conspiracy theorists and idiots do.

The first paper doesn't agree with your claim so it's pretty obvious you didn't even read it yourself.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is not a big pile, these are only 8 peer-reviewed papers. This is a tiny snack on a coffee-cup plate.

I read many papers every day, and I intentionally posted some that don't 100% back up what I said so you can have more nuance.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You intentionally made the first one disagree with your argument to add nuance.

Thank you, I will be laughing about this for years to come.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Oh, I doubt that you'll be laughing. Tell me, how do you think avoiding confirmation biases and sampling biases looks like?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Your links don’t support your claim, and in fact contradict it. No doomerism please.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I highly doubt that you've read them or comprehend the implications. The models have various outputs. Good luck with your optimism, but don't expect me to work to keep your hopes up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I skimmed a few, but I took your dozens of seemingly barely relevant links as a deliberate attempt to keep people from scrutinizing your claim. So no, I didn’t read all of them and I doubt you did either. If you did then please point to specifically where any of that supports your claim that Gaza will be uninhabitable.

Most seemed completely irrelevant to your claim but one paper showed a projected lethal heat map. It did not show any such heat in Israel/Palestine. This makes sense because west-facing coastal regions are protected from extreme temperatures by marine weather.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago

They have long been at the point where the heat seems to impact their thought processes negatively. It will only get worse with more heat, I'm afraid.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

If they end up losing.