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
view the rest of the comments
All pre-october apartheid war crimes absolutely. They don't change bc of October and the collective punishment of civilians war crimes and more need to be held ICC.
But post October and until Hamas is gone, I think proving war crimes would be exceptionally difficult. Because of how they operate and their provable intent to cause as many casualties as possible, it makes it difficult to argue protected status for most targets right now.
100% with you, this isn't just Hamas, it's Iran, Quatar, Iraq, Hezbollah (not all of Lebanon), Houthis (not all of Yemen), and on and on. Pretending this is just Hamas is a bad call for sure. Most here do it here for ignorance or to feed an intentional false narrative about an underdog.
See I think the key point is that you assume at least half of all Gazans are guilty alongside Hamas because >50% of people in Gaza supported Hamas in the 2007 elections. Even assuming similar proportions now, I would argue that a large number of that supporting group are only the victims of propaganda, rather than organically and sincerely taking that position.
There were more than 2 million people in the Gaza strip, of which only 50,000 were members of Hamas. The rest are civilians, people who on one side face repression from Israelis and on the other face Hamas telling them they can make things better.
First, I definitely think you are right that they're victims of propaganda. And then I ask myself, would that knowledge have me feel less recriminations to someone in the Klan who bought into their propaganda and lynched a man? And the answer, for me personally, is no.
No, I'm responding to the recent poll, the current best data we have.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/palestinian-poll-finds-strong-support-for-hamas-oct-7-attacks-river-to-the-sea-state/ar-AA1k6mEx
Lots of sources have reported on it. If you don't like that one you can find mNy more.
That's where you draw a fictional strawman, one that isn't you, and claim that you would be far more righteous and not fall for it.
It's strange how you would refer to a recent poll, promoted by the IDF but yet fundamentally queried by Palestinian government, yet at the same time the IDF completely disregards (and yet doesn't offer its own number) for the casualty numbers provided by Palestine. It reeks of cherry picking the numbers that suit your argument.
Israel have, so far, killed more than 10x the number of people Hamas did in one day. When is enough, enough?
How many Palestinian civilians need to die before Israel is satisfied?
Let me try and clarify, this was an independent poll conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development. An independent Arab polling organization. It wasn't conducted by Hamas or the IDF or the PA, etc.
And as I've said many times, I don't evaluate a conflict by whether one side has more casualties. The corollary is that the conflict would be more acceptable if more people died on the other side. Knowing that's false let's us know that the logic attempted has derailed. It's simply ethically and morally bankrupt.
I also understand using a debate tactic to attack the data when it's saying something that's not compatible / supportive of the narrative one is pushing.
I'm happy to look at a different recent poll, or look at a source of yours why this isn't the most recent and best numbers we have. I would love it if support for Hamas wasn't so high and would be really pleased if the October attack was condemned and not celebrated.
You still have avoided answering my key questions.
Israel refute the Gaza deathtoll lfrom Palestinian sources as false. However, Israel do not publish their own numbers to support their objections.
How many civilians are acceptable casualties in Gaza, as far as the IDF are concerned??
The IDF have been tacitly reluctant in answering this question.
Their avoidance here us only just shy of accountability for their actions, if it even meets that bar.
The first one, what's the question?
I'm sure any sane person would answer no civilians casualties are acceptable. Which one of many reasons why Hamas must be eradicated, co-locating to intentionally cause the death of civilians. It's why what Hamas is doing by co-locating is one of the worst war crimes.
As for reluctance, I think it's about everyone knows that nobody except Hamas wants civilian casualties. Look even here on worldnews how successful they've been with that propaganda.
And that doesn't even mention the regular attacks by Iraq, Houthis, Syrians, etc on US troops and civilian shipping lanes.
My questions were pretty clear:
Israel want to "eradicate" Hamas, but haven't really defined that objective. It's a very vague objective, and one that cannot foreseeably be attained. As such it raises the very valid question of how many civilians they consider as acceptable collateral damage to achieve that objective.
Based on their general public statements, it seems like that number is unforgiveably high.