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 don't understand where the people taking these statements seriously (either to support them or to oppose them) imagine that the Palestinians could possibly go from Gaza. Egypt won't take them. That means they're not going anywhere.
Nobody would take the Jews in the 1930's either. This is part of the playbook.
They'll eventually just push them into Egypt. It doesn't matter that Egypt doesn't want them. It matters more that Egypt probably won't start shooting over it. And if they do they'll be labelled anti-semites anyway and Israel will take the Sinai or something.
Israel can't take the Sinai. There's a peacekeeping force there specifically to prevent such a thing...
And yeah. Yeah they're just going to lean on MFO Sinai to oversee refugee camps aren't they.
I'd say the Israelis couldn't attack American troops and maintain their support but uhhh they already managed that some decades ago.
I don't think the point of genocide is for them to leave.
Anywhere else... I think the point is to say that they should've figured it out. They had warning and opportunity to leave, even when they didn't. The Nazis played the same strategy.
The people downvoting you need a history lesson. Hitler used the same rhetoric to justify the Holocaust.
Honestly, no one takes either of those racist idiots seriously. They're not serious people and this isn't a serious plan. They're both despised in Israel and, thankfully, neither really have any influence.
So the minister of finance and minister of national security aren't influential in any ways in a country that gets billions of dollars from the USA and uses it to fund their national war effort?
Are you waiting for other people in their govt to say something about flattening Gaza? Some minor politicians have said that
The agriculture minister said this would be a second Nakba, that event where the Israelis took homes and made prisoners go through their own abandoned(stolen) homes taking books, furniture, and their whole cultural history for the Israeli to take as spoils of war.
Exactly this. Either Netanyahu controls the Likud-coalition and this is the aligned message of displacement/ethnic cleansing, or he dismisses these ministers and publicly refutes these statements, or he doesn’t have control and should immediately hold elections to secure a real coalition or majority. But that risks jail for Netanyahu, and his actions so far have openly spoken of cowardice in the face of the legal repercussions.
Because otherwise this kind of rhetoric is going straight into the ICJ evidence file for SA’s genocide complaint that Israel is contesting. Protestations of ‘blood libel’ don’t drown out cabinet ministers openly calling for ethnic cleansing going unpunished.
As odd as it may seem: yes, they aren't influential in directing the war. They have those positions because Netanyahu promised them for supporting his coalition, not because they were "earned" or because they're ideologically aligned. It's a marriage of convenience and outside of Netanyahu's deal to desperately cling to power, these two are far-right kooks from fringe parties. It doesn't give them real legitimacy. Netayahu's coalition deal was an enormous controversy even outside of Israel. A big reason they formed the emergency government was to keep extremely unserious clowns like these away from decision-making by bringing in grown-ups. They are both strongly disliked and would be crushed back into obscurity in an election.
This article presents their statements as something new and they aren't. Both of these fucking morons routinely suggest horrific shit like expelling Arabs from Israel. Ben-Gvir was convicted in Israel of racist incitement against Arabs decades ago. A former head of Shin Bet once referred to Smotrich as a "Jewish terrorist." They are both settler extremists and known quantites; it would be stranger if they weren't spouting racist, extremist bullshit. They are not representative of the broader government. Netanyahu didn't have to agree to a cabinet made up of his political enemies; even that far-right ghoul knows these people are clowns. Given all that, I don't think there's a compelling reason to believe that they'd be the ones to announce Israeli policy.
I'm waiting for someone who actually matters. These dipshits do not. I mean, really, none of the people currently in power are going to be around after this conflict anyway, so I'm more concerned with what Gantz is saying than with Netanyahu's petulant tantrums.
Now apply the same standard to the enemies of Israel. Part of the dehumanization that goes on with Israeli apartheid and occupation is that while Israeli politics is accepted as complicated and nuanced, with analysis like the one you offer here, the politics of the other side(s) is always considered morally unambiguous. Hamas: a terrorist monolith. Fatah: supports a terrorist fund. Hezbollah: Iranian stooges.
If we apply the same absolutist moral standard to Israel, the nuance you present simply doesn't matter: if kahanist extremists are in government, the entire state is compromised, and Israel needs to be militarily defeated so that peace can exist.
If we allow for nuance also for Israel's enemies then a whole bunch of racist assumptions go away. The conflict is no longer a fight between the only democracy in the ME and the forces of Sauron. It's a political land dispute that is resolvable. But you have to talk to the political forces you've labelled terrorists, accept that they have valid and legitimate aspirations and concerns (just like the Israelis do) and negotiate in good faith.
Yes! I completely agree with you. I'm not totally sure if you're saying that 'people should' apply that same standard or that I'm not applying it. I'm only talking about the people in this article, not suggesting that complexity or nuance only exist in Israeli politics. I think you need to take on a ton of nuance to even understand Hezbollah's behaviour at the Israeli border, let alone understand them as an organization.
Yes, we are in complete agreement that the same standard of nuance should be applied!
One of them is in charge of the police and border patrol. I don't think it much matters if the average person doesn't like them.
Neither of those things give him the power to do what he said or the influence to have it done. Both of those things matter.
Dude they're doing it in the West Bank right now.
They're doing what in the West Bank?
They're not expelling people from the West Bank for the same reason as OP said: there's nowhere for anyone to go. The settlers, including the two absolute pieces of shit in the article, are responsible for horrific crimes in the West Bank but it's not the same thing as Gaza and it's not the same thing they're talking about.
They're emptying whole villages with death threats. Care to guess how the villagers know the threats are credible enough that they need to leave?
I'm sure the conversation you want to be having is happening somewhere. You should find someone who's defending what's happening in the West Bank and say this to them.
It's a serious expression of the government's values. Just because those particular officials lack the power to do what they propose doesn't mean their words are meaningless. If Bibi and his crew weren't in favor of genocide, they'd be loudly condemning these assholes and doing whatever they can to remove them from office.
It's not. I already wrote a very long post about why you're wrong in this case, why those people are in those positions, and why there's less reason to be afraid of those statements (though good reason to be outraged) than this article suggests.