this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
413 points (96.0% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2795 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 !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/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Israeli PM said to have turned down proposal in early talks and continues to take tough line

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In the West Bank, with no Hamas presence, Israeli settlers backed by the IDF come kill them and take their homes. The Israeli leadership doesn’t want a two state solution because extreme Zionists are in power.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, the Gaza settlements were dismantled in 2005, before Hamas came to power in 2007.

[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They went from occupation to siege. Not much improvement. I also wasn’t talking about Gaza so try to stay on topic.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was taking about Gaza, since that's where Hamas is primarily active, and that's what the original comment was about. That's why I was focusing on Gaza.

[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I’m talking about Palestinians in general because they all get brutalized and Hamas is used as justification when they are only in one territory. Hamas is used as a distraction from the fact that Israelis just want to steal all of Palestinians land.

Regardless, the occupation in Gaza turned into a blockade/siege, why do people say they occupation stopped like that meant anything in practical terms for the citizens on the ground.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They weren't in power when Hamas came to power. Both sides have been pushing each other towards wanting to annihilate each other. But do you think a two state solution would minimize the suffering, but is not a feasible outcome?

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A two-state solution was viable before Israel settled people in the middle of the west bank.

As an intentional tactic of Zionist settlers, it is now impossible to have a defensible border.

The only way forward now is to end apartheid and give full rights to the civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza.

Zionists will claim this “destroys Israel” or other nonsense we heard from South African defenders of apartheid.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Didn't Israel remove all Gaza settlements in 2005? Seems like they could do the same for the West Bank. And why would that be needed for an independent Gaza?

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago

Israeli Zionists would rather genocide Palestinians than give up their West Bank settlements.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would also be in favor of ending racist government policies and giving full rights and protections to Palestinians, but that is really difficult with the terrorist actions.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves".

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's an escalation ladder, both sides need to deescalate together to lower hostilities.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But they're literally both oppressors

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it's doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible.

I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it's 'violence is the only answer' stance.

[–] TheDankHold@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Zionists I’m talking about funded and propped up Hamas. Likud is not younger than Hamas. You seem to have a very limited understanding of this.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, maybe, you're right I have only spent a few hours looking into the origin and spread of Hamas. But whether Hamas was funded by Zionists is irrelevant to whether their use of violence creates more or less suffering overall. In response to the original question, I think Hamas is causing much more harm and suffering to the people of Gaza by their excessive violence than diplomatic efforts likely would have.

[–] snek@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But why shift it on Hamas when it's Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I'm asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I'm not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it's vicinity in one night (which happened already)

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence.