A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
What infuriates me is this:
“[T]he United States has made clear that it will block Palestinian membership and statehood until direct negotiations with Israel resolve key issues, including security, boundaries and the future of Jerusalem.”
Why does Israel get membership in the UN, if these are preconditions for membership? Israel will never agree to Palestinian membership. A stable Palestinian state will likely never exist until Israel is defeated militarily and has no choice but to accept it.
When statements don't make sense, i find it helpful to cut out any part that offends logic and see if it becomes clearer. In this case i apply it like this:
“[T]he United States has made clear that it will block Palestinian membership and statehood.
There! The other parts were extraenous fluff to soften their perceived position.
(I know you already grok their position, I'm just sayin its a hack i like.)
I do not see where the statement you quoted says Israel needs to agree for Palestine to become a UN member. It says that negotiations with Israel are necessary to resolve the key issues.
And that’s a very valid point.
That’s what “membership” means in the quote
yes, but it will be united states blocking it, not Israel
If I'm reading it right, the OP meant something like this:
The US block Palestinian membership on the condition of negotiations with Israel, but don't impose the same restriction (negotiations eith Palestine) on Israel's membership. Why does Israel get to be a member without negotiation, but Palestine doesn't?
(Not taking a stance here, argue with the OP if you want to. I'm just contributing my understanding.)
Never is a strong word.
Until 1995, when Israeli PM Rabin was assassinated by a right winger, they were moving towards a two state solution, to the point of the IDF forcibly removing their own Jewish settlements from the lands of the prospective Palestinian state.
After the assassination, Netanyahu became the next PM, and has served in the position for most of the time since, asides most of a decade in the 2000s where other Likud politicians held it. He reversed the policy of settler removal.
Try not to conflate the entire country with the crazy right winger leadership they have currently. The same leadership of strongmen that catastrophically failed to keep them safe back in October, which is the one single thing such a man says he is supposed to be good at.
All that said, I also support Palestinian entry as a UN member state, and am tired of the US unfairly favoring its treaty ally in this case.
Hamas's human shield tactic paying off.
If Israel had responded proportionately to Oct 7, the world would have continued to ignore their cruel apartheid.
The tunnels were the means of attack.
Destroying the tunnels is the literal definition of a proportionate response.
Combined with reasonable attempts to warn civilians, it's kosher.
Not when reasonable effort to warn civilians is: we're going to bomb you, and if you run we'll bomb you too.
Actually they send texts, call phones, and fire warning shots. The Qatari media you gorge yourself on has covered it zero times.
Are you saying they did not warn people before moving into Rafah?
That's delusional.
That's not what I am denying, read my comment again. What I am saying is that the warnings are just for show, because if they follow the warnings and flee, the IDF kills them while they are on the run
98% of Gaza says that's not true.
You're conflating a few isolated stories from the initial days of the war during the evacuation of northern Gaza when they said "go south toward general safety," not "go south and your safety is guaranteed."
At that time, 99.94% of the civilian population evacuated without harm.
At any rate "don't stand above tunnels and stay the fuck away from any members of Hamas or die" would have been very clear to me.
Palestinians' tactic of "existing and deserving rights" is paying off, yeah.
Human shields are kind of useless against an army with no morals ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If they want more rights that begins with following International law on any occasions. Rejecting terrorism. Putting your soldiers in uniform. Freeing hostages. Not targeting innocent people every single day with indiscriminate rocket attacks. Do you know anything about the people you're talking about or are you just ignoring it all because you're sad about the consequences of their own actions? Nobody made Hamas build tunnels under every single school and hospital, nobody made Hamas turn their airport and water ports into instrumentalities of international terrorism. That's what the people chose. Hamas is (was?) wildly popular.
If they want more rights that begins with following International law on any occasions. Rejecting terrorism. Putting your soldiers in uniform. Freeing hostages. Not targeting innocent people every single day with indiscriminate rocket attacks.
Apart from the fact that they do have uniforms for soldiers (except for during that little hospital "operation" some months back), you see that Israel is guilty of all of this too, right?
Eg being held in "administrative detention" without charge is being held hostage, harming or threatening innocent civilians so they put pressure on their government is terrorism. Killing AI-identified "targets" while they're at home with their families because it's easier is targeting innocent people every day. And withholding the necessities of life from civilians on purpose is against international law. Nice uniforms though yeah.
Should we take away Israelis' rights by your logic? Or should we not punish innocents for the actions of people who claim to speak for them?
Basic rights are not conditional. Not sure how I can explain that to you if you don't understand that already. Jesus christ.
Prisoners of war don't get an arraignment and bail. What are you even talking about.
I'm not talking about prisoners of war anywhere there.
Prisoners taken in a warzone under suspicion. Administrative detention. Call it however. No diplomatic status. Citizens of no legitimate state. Hamas is a terrorist organization. They don't get to have a state. They are actual war criminals for all intents and purposes, and in all pursuits. War crimes are never punished in Gaza, often rewarded, always revered. Hamas is indefensible and unredeemable for what they've done to millions of people of have lived and died in Gaza without any prospects, having turned every institution into modalities of Iranian-vassal terrorism. Give me a break.
Prisoners taken in a warzone under suspicion. Administrative detention. Call it however.
Here you go, something fun to learn: https://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention
Again, nothing to do with war, NOT prisoners of war. Hostages by another name. How did you not know about this?
They are actual war criminals for all intents and purposes, and in all pursuits. War crimes are never punished in ~~Gaza~~ Israel, often rewarded, always revered.
Also true this way around. Israel has been committing war crimes for 7 months straight now.
Go read the ICJ preliminary order and the express finding that Israel does prosecute war criminals. And guess what? It's true. The Qatari state/ pro-Trump/pro-Russia media diet you are gorging yourself on does not cover it at all.
Hamas are war criminals...in all pursuits.
No, that's not also true about Israel. You are looking at a small isolated thing, which I think you are portraying unfairly and incompletely, but fine we can disagree.
But Israel has a legitimate government that has stabily for decades provided essential services to tens of millions of people.
Glad you agree Hamas must go.
What's your plan to make that happen? How would you destroy the tunnels?
You'd do the best you could. That means ordinance and coordinated evacuations and warnings, knowing that the civilian population is going to follow Hamas around up above like one of those artic foxes stalking a tundra shrew below the snow, so they can win Martyrdom™ prizes, paid in rial, no doubt. Such disregard for their own side's civilians is unprecedented in warfare. International law is based on precedent.
Sorry did you just totally ignore the administrative detention thing? We can talk about this stuff afterwards. Do you see how these people are hostages?
No not at all. Hostages? Of who? No one wants to trade anyone for anything, except Hamas.
I see how there exists in Gaza a pervasive, deranged culture of support for terrorism and willing "martyrdom," a wilfull disregard for life or law, material support of which justifies administrative detention. Easily. Do you not?
This is what "administrative detention" means: https://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention
I shared this link with you a couple of messages back. Do you agree that being imprisoned indefinitely, not during an explicit time of war (ie it has happened for many many years now, these are not prisoners of war) and with NO CHARGE is equivalent to being a hostage?
This is the classic defense of Hamas by the way. Disregard all points of fact, talk about how evil Israel is.
Like you totally ignored all points of fact raised by me and didn't even know that Israel detains Palestinians without charge all the time outside of active war?
I'll tell you why I didn't fight you on these points: the topic of conversation is Palestinian statehood. NOT Hamas. What you are doing is classic hasbara bullshit, if in doubt and people start talking about human rights for Palestinians, shift the conversation to Hamas. You think or at least imply that the actions of a few can detract from the need for basic rights for every single human being. As I said, if that was the case then Israelis lose them too.
And guess what? Hamas are terrorists and I agree they are shit. Now if you could face up to the various despicable crimes of Israel we might actually get somewhere here.
Can't wait to see the list of US/Israel bootlickers that abstained from/voted against this, trying to deny an entire people the right to their own land.
“The United States voted against the resolution, along with Israel, Argentina, Czechia, Hungary, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Papua New Guinea.”