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 !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Doppler analysis is a really good approach. Assuming there are no glaring errors in the analysis: Israel is lying, it absolutely did not come from where they claim. It came from.... the direction of Israel.
But perhaps physics is just antisemitic now who knows
As a Jew who passed physics, I can tell you that it is not antisemitic. Nor is it to say "fuck PeePee Netanyahu's campaign of destruction and misinformation." Saying all Israelis are bad isn't antisemitic, but it's not correct. Saying that you dislike Israel because it has too many Jews is both antisemitic and valid, oddly enough. Saying you hate all Jews is antisemitic.
Anyway, most of the people telling you that not supporting Israel is antisemitic are, in fact, actual antisemites. They're the same people who say that it's actually racist to call someone a racist.
That comment really made me think, thank you! The only part where I’m still stuck is the sentence “…most of the people telling you that not supporting Israel is antisemetic are, in fact, antisemites.” I can understand why their statement is incorrect at face value. But I haven’t quite untangled why they would be antisemites for making that statement. Would you please clarify that part for me?
The quite is about correlation, not causation.
Antisemitic people tend to think that Isreal and all Jewish people do everything in lockstep because their antisemitic views include the "Jews controlling the world" myth. To them Isreal = Jews and therefore criticizing Isreal is the same thing as criticizing all Jewish people amd they want to play 'gotcha' based on that.
I don't think the statement makes them anti-semitic, they just happen to be anti-semitic and use calling other people anti-semitic for anti-Israeli sentiments as a cover for their own racism.
There is a lot to unpack in your comment.
But good food for thought.
Now they have the right to defend themselves from physics.
Not disputing what you are saying but do you have a link to such an analysis?
This story is about it, I haven't seen it myself! I would like to though, I did the same thing once in a radio astronomy context
Doesn't matter who did it. The issue is the systemic oppression of a population, apartheid leads to violence. Blame is immaterial here. Both belligerents are bad actors, having done terrible things to each other, and the civilians.
The only resolution is how to end the apartheid. Truth and reconciliation, integration of the populations, total freedom and liberation of a country, take your pick.
This one attack is being skillfully used to redirect our attention from the real issue, that is, everything you said.
If your "only resolution" is completely unattainable, that's not very helpful.
Ending apartheid is attainable. It's worked in many different countries. It's not an easy process by any means. Nobody's going to have peace, as long as apartheid continues.
Granting Independence to Palestine has been on the table for 60 years. Very attainable, the will currently doesn't exist but it's attainable.
The current plan of just ratcheting up the pressure doesn't seem to be working...
People thought it matters who did it when they were still thinking it was Israel.
You're building a straw man here. Why do you think those were the exact same people? I think you're creating an imaginary enemy here
The issue is the war and violence, lets not bicker and argue about who killed who... the continuation is the problem. If we were at peace and trying to find justice about war crimes, the blame and facts matter, but we are talking about a ongoing 60 year war, that has just come to a boil.
There isn't any diplomatic effort to find a solution on the table, just more violence and escalation......
Of course, that's the reasonable objective.
How do you integrate a population that wants to kill you though?
If you try to kill them right back, that just proves their point.
Need to find a stable situation for the area. Either bite the bullet and make a independent state of them, or integrate them into the one country. Two separate populations in the same area will just beget more violence.
Hamas can only be defeated by the people seeing that they have better options, its a difficult path, but it has to be done.
So you just let them kill you without response. And you think Hamas and the other fundamentalist Islamic terrorists will stop killing Jews once they have their own state, which they rejected when they were offered it.
You carry out a proportional response. When there's a huge power asymmetry you have to consider that in your responses.
There will never be peace with Hamas, or any religious fundamentalist. The entire exercise is to get the population to have a better option so they don't back the extremists. Both populations
Okay. So who is keeping tally? Does the side with the least war crimes win or something?...
Actually, the goal seems to be committing the most war crimes that you're somehow absolved of, it appears.
Is this like breaking the hi-score counter by going higher than what the counter can do? Except it's for war crimes?
Number of casualties: 00000
This still leaves two major questions unanswered; if it was Israel, why did they use so much smaller bomb than they usually do and why did they target the parking lot? I've only seen them drop JDAMs from planes and not use traditional artillery. Someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong.
I'm also wondering wether they considered the fact that as the videos seems to show a malfunctioning rocket falling back to Gaza, maybe the direction of the impact could be explained by that the rocket effectively turned around mid flight.
The only sensible explanation for this being Israeli rocket would be that it's a rogue anti-air missile from iron dome that was trying to intercept these rockets but failed and for some reason didn't self-destruct before hitting the ground.
Al Jazeera had been live streaming and live reporting the entire thing, and there are multiple angles and phone videos from them and other sources that show the entire incident, from the rocket barrage, to the booster failure, to the hospital explosion.
Alot of the videos in there were confirmed 8 hours after the incident, this is the first mainstream media outlet that put it all together.
The AP was one of the first to report what the Gaza Health Ministry said, "Israel strikes hospital, killing 500", then edited their article 3 times in 1 hour, with new titles and recharacterizing the report as "they said" to try and cover the increasing uncertainty of the situation. Along with the casualty number dropping. Now some might say "But any death at all is bad, 50 or 500!". That's true, it's still really tragic, but it's also a 90% error, which is a disaster for journalism.
The article covers the JDAM theories, the Israel warned them, the Hamas announcing their launching rockets a little after the incident. All things that would make the situation more murky.
I admit I do sound like I'm defending Israel with this. This particular event is a flashpoint for me personally since I'm heavily invested in the state of journalism in an age where the flood of information can overwhelm news and lead to innaccuracies.
The rocket turning around video is a different video from last year.
Unfortunately I got banned from World News on lemmy.ml because posting this was "War Crime Denial" apparently.
the "good" hamas does not exist.
supporting hamas does make the world a worse place any time.
What does the investigation have to do with that though? It raises some great questions and shows that no war party shall be trusted in this information war.