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.
-
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
I agree with this 100%. I think it needs to get said more, and more: Palestinians deserve full civil rights including the freedom of movement throughout a single state covering all of historic Palestine.
What do you mean "all of historic Palestine"? Palestine was never a state. Do you mean that Palestine should replace whole Israel? Where would the Izraelis go then?
This wasn't meant to be a political statement. Historic Palestine is a term for what is technically known as Mandate Palestine (or according to Wikipedia, Mandatory Palestine). This was the region defined as Palestine by the League of Nations between 1920 and is a convenient way to refer to all the area that is contested by Israel and Palestinians.
I'm sorry if it was unclear. I meant that Israel should incorporate the occupied territories formally and legally, and afford the residents full citizenship in the combined state so that both Israelis and Palestinians can live an work anywhere in the combined region. That's what the "One-State Solution"means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution
The region was called philistia since the 10th century bc. Why are we so focused on the modern nation state, a concept that didn’t really exist until the last couple hundred years?
That land has always been referred to by their population. Philistia, land of the philistines. Then the name morphed into Palestine. It’s always been Palestine.
I just want to point to my response to @samokosik@lemmynsfw.com . This wasn't meant to be a political statement, I was just using a formal term to refer to the entire region that includes Israel and the occupied territories.
It has never been Palestine lol.
Even before your Philistia, there were Jews occupying the land if you want to make judgement based on who was there first. Then the land became Roman and jews were expelled. Later it became part of the Ottoman Empire and the after WW1, Britain got it. Throughout the history there was never a state called "Palestine".
There could have been one if they had accepted a compromise proposed by UN in 1948. They didn't, so the result was no state for Palestine :/
I just explained to you how it was known as that for centuries. Both the philistines and canaanites (of which the Jewish kingdoms grew from) lived in the area as part of the population.
They lived there at the same time, Jews weren’t first. You’re arrogant and wrong, the worst combo.
And you’re still hung up on nation states, the fact that ottomans conquered and ruled the Palestinians/Philistines doesn’t mean those people haven’t lived there constantly for centuries. The idea of a nation state didn’t exist until the 18th century. It has no bearing on whether a population should have self determination.
You also forget that in WW1 the British promised the Palestinians the entire territory for their assistance. So if frame it as Palestinians opposed the Brit’s changing the deal to move a bunch of Europeans into the territory they were promised. The west threw their resources secured through global empire to force this colony on the locals. Framing it as not resisting western colonization is deceptive and obfuscates the motives leadership expressed.
Yes, they lived there at the same time, still Jews came in 13th century BC whilst Philistines not sooner than 12th. In addition, Phillistines were a tribe from an area close to Greece/Macedonia.
However, I agree that there were promises both to Jews and Palestinians. Hence why a compromise had to be made. Israel accepted, Palestine did not (several times).
So they came in you say? So it sounds like by your logic it doesn’t belong to them either, huh? Maybe we should track down the descendants of ancient Canaanites and give them the territory. After all the Israelites were pastoralists east of the levant before they moved into conquer the territory.
More manipulative framing. The Brit’s told Palestinians they could have their land. Then told European Jews they’d give them Palestinians land. A colonial empire took land from Palestinians to give to Europeans. And by “took from” I mean they removed people from their ancestral homes to move in colonists.
Palestinians were told to give up their homes to European immigrants and those immigrants were told they could only colonize half of Palestinian territory. That’s a compromise the same way taking one eye instead of letting you keep both is. I don’t care if you promised someone else both of my eyes, they aren’t your eyes to give away.
One state solution would be nice but do you think they could agree on that?
Arab school or having a state is very different compared to the way Israel works. Whilst none of the Arab countries respects the basic human rights, israel allows registered partnerships and even adoptions by LGBTI people. I am not really sure how this would work.
Another problem could be the extremely radical Jews/Arabs who could maybe threaten the democracy of the one state solution and accept strictly religious decisions.
Comparison to 2 eyes is very inaccurate as: a) there already were jews leaving Europe for obvious reasons, they had to go somewhere b) at some point, the land belonged to both jews and arabs
I agree with you that the way of distributing the land was very terrible.
They “had to go somewhere” is only true if you decide Europe can’t fix its own antisemitism.
Regardless, they didn’t have to displace people from their homes. The US, especially in the 40s, has tons of space for new communities to form.
There was no need to kick locals out of their homes so you can ship in foreigners.
Also don’t separate Arab and Jew. There are Arab Jews and they lived alongside Palestinians for centuries. The land was lived in by Arabs and Europeans came in and kicked most of them out of half of their homelands.
Britain promised the Arabs (which had members of all three main abrahamic sects) that they could rule the land they lived in. Then after the war they promised some Europeans that they could have all of that territory. The analogy fits just fine.
The question is how many exactly left because the Arab leaders proposed and how many were actually kicked out. Today, Israel has 20% of Arab citizens which have exactly the same right as Jewish ones, so I doubt to believe every single Arab was expelled by IDF because they were not jews.
There was even a speech by Ben Gurion that asked Arabs to stay where they were.