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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
Israeal literally has separate citizenships for arabs - specific an Israeli Arab Citizenship - and for jews - who have an Israeli Jew Citizenship - and in that country rights which in any other country in the world would be associated with nationality (i.e. Israeli) are in fact associated with citizenship and they're different for Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews, with the former having less rights.
In fact one of the limitations that Israeli Arab citizens have which Israeli Jew citizens do not is that they can be blocked from living in certain places and also they can be kicked out of their homes much more easilly (which is being used to kick them out of their homes in Old Jerusalem) so they most definitelly do not "live anywhere in Israel".
It is not just de facto Appartheid, it's de jure (by Law) Apparheid and a pretty extreme one at that.
They have less rights by law its unquestionably apartied.
No they don't. Israeli Arabs are full citizens.
Palestinians aren't Israeli, which is the core of why this argument devalues the concept of apartheid.
No one said they weren't, I said they have fewer rights because it's an ethnostate.
There are Palestinian isrealis dumb dumb, as I've said before do research before you comment.
It's literally not an ethnostate if there are people of different cultures and ethnicities with full citizenship.
There are Israelis of Palestinian origin. However, policies against the different nation of Palestine aren't apartheid. They're often bad policies, but apartheid doesn't mean "dumb shit policy."
It is if they have fewer rights by law, that's called apartied and makes it an ethnostate.
Just delete all the parts about how minoritarian rule is central to apartheid, as is denying representation, as well as racial segregation
Find a better definition of it then boss. You say I'm wrong, prove it to be.
I literally just did that.
Full citizens with less rights. That's like saying Jim Crow America was fine because African Americans were full citizens.
No it isn't. At most, it's like saying Jim Crow America wasn't apartheid. It wasn't. It was just shitty. For one thing, apartheid is explicitly minoritarian.
What "fewer rights" do they have? How is the power structured?
See the reason I ask is that Arab Israelis have almost exactly proportional representation in Israel's government, which is not how apartheid works at all.
No, that's South African specific. Everyone knows what you mean when you say apartied, it's called colloquialism.
You say there equal prove it, should be easy.
Almost exactly the same or the same, there's big difference there bud.
Apartheid is not a colloquialism. It is a sanctions-inducing offense, internationally.
This is what happens when you dilute serious words like "genocide" and "apartheid." You are unintentionally downplaying worse affairs.
Things can be bad and not be literally the worst.
It's the same effect causing everyone in these threads to assume i''m super jazzed about what Israel does. This is political grandstanding to you, not serious discussion.
Destroying the meaning of terms has serious consequences, because it enables similar steps. Israel deserves serious criticism, not this joke of a throwaway insult.
As in apartheid South Africa, Israel classifies its citizens according to ethnicity and privileges one group over all others. Today, there is a de facto caste system within the territories that Israel controls between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. At the top are Israeli Jews, while Muslim and Christian Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza are at the bottom. Between them are Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinian residents of occupied East Jerusalem. Each has different rights according to the regime Israel has implemented, with Jews enjoying the full benefits of democracy in a “Jewish state,” and Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank and Gaza accorded no political rights whatsoever, being ruled by Israeli military decree.
In apartheid South Africa, blacks weren’t allowed to vote for the national government. While Palestinian citizens of Israel can vote in Israeli elections, millions of Palestinians in the occupied territories cannot, even though Israel has ruled them for almost half a century.
In apartheid South Africa, the government used a complex pass system to control the movement of blacks, while Israel has instituted an elaborate permit and checkpoint system to control Palestinian movement in the occupied territories.
**In South Africa, blacks were forced into bantustans where they were more easily controlled by the apartheid regime. ** Israel has divided the occupied territories into several isolated territorial units, cut off from one another and from the outside world and surrounded by walls and checkpoints, so that the Israeli army can more easily control the Palestinian population. Meanwhile, within Israel’s internationally recognized pre-1967 borders, approximately 93% of the land is state-owned and controlled by the Israel Land Authority and quasi-governmental agencies like the Jewish National Fund, which systematically discriminate against non-Jewish citizens in its allocation. Combined with private discriminatory rental policies, Israeli government policies have ensured a concentration of the non-Jewish Arab population into several geographically constricted, overcrowded and underserviced ghettos.
In apartheid South Africa there were whites-only areas, while inside Israel there are more than 300 rural Jewish-majority towns that under Israeli law can reject residents who do not meet a vague “social suitability" standard. Critics, including Human Rights Watch, have slammed the law as an attempt to allow Jewish towns to keep Arabs and other non-Jews out. In the occupied Palestinian territories, Israel has built a network of Israeli-only roads that Palestinians are barred from traveling on, while Jewish settlers living right next door in exclusive housing can use them.
**Many veterans of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa consider Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to be a form of apartheid. ** One of the most outspoken voices has been that of Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, one of the heroes of the struggle against South African apartheid. Tutu has repeatedly made the comparison, writing in 2012 that Israel’s version of apartheid is actually worse than South Africa’s, stating: “Not only is this group of people [Palestinians] being oppressed more than the apartheid ideologues could ever dream about in South Africa, their very identity and history are being denied and obfuscated.” In June 2013, the recently retired South African ambassador to Israel, Ismail Coovadia, wrote that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is a “replication of apartheid.”
One of the first people to use the word “apartheid” in relation to Israel was Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, who warned following the 1967 War of Israel becoming an “apartheid state” if it retained control of the occupied territories. In 1999, then-Israeli prime minister and current defense minister Ehud Barak stated: "Every attempt to keep hold of [Israel and the occupied territories] as one political entity leads, necessarily, to either a nondemocratic or a non-Jewish state. Because if the Palestinians vote, then it is a binational state, and if they don’t vote it is an apartheid state.” In 2010, Barak repeated the apartheid comparison, stating: “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic… If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”
The 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines apartheid as “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Over the entirety of its 65-year existence, there has been a period of only about one year (1966-67) that Israel has not ruled over large numbers of Palestinians to whom it granted no political rights simply because they are not Jewish. Prior to 1967 and the start of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, Palestinians who remained inside what became Israel in 1948 were ruled by martial law for all but one year, similar to the way that Palestinians in the occupied territories have been ruled ever since.
Inside Israel there are more than 50 laws that privilege Jews or discriminate against non-Jewish Palestinian citizens, affecting everything from immigration and family reunification to land ownership rights. In the occupied territories, Palestinians have lived under a brutal and repressive Israeli military regime for more than 46 years while Jewish settlers protected by the Israeli army colonize their land and lord it over them. In the words of a 2010 Human Rights Watch report entitled "Separate and Unequal: Israel’s Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories”
Its use is bud, if you're going to be tedious at least be correct.
Not at all, you're the one playing things down if anything. Similarly no one said genocide, stay on topic.
Painting in shades of genocide, weird hill to die on bud.
You're super jazzed about it, you're a fucking racist bigot we know this for a fact.
That's how language changes, cool doesn't literally mean cool. Want to take a guess at how that came to be?
Bro. Just stop. You're ackshually-ing all over everyone's face.
You're being pedantic. They are second class citizens of the State of Israel. They are rounded up and put into open -air prisons, and they do not enjoy the same rights as Ashkenazi Israelis. Israel is an apartheid state.
This is not accurate.
Gaza is not an "open air prison." That is figurative language, to describe the awful conditions in Gaza.
It is not a literal prison. No Israeli citizen is "rounded up and sent to Gaza."
Ok fair, it's a concentration camp.
Do not downplay the term apartheid or genocide like this. Israel is an illegal apartheid state. And they are committing a genocide. Denying this really raises eyebrows you see.
Lol both of these are wrong though.
Here you are, lying on the internet again - I can't say I'm surprised at your lack of integrity - you're a fucking genocide denier.
The UN disagrees with you on both points.
If Israel doesn't want to be called an apartheid state it should stop its apartheid.
In my experience most people who say it's not an apartheid haven't really studied the history of Apartheid South Africa.
There are many features that resemble it, such as the tiered rights system, shifting people into designated areas with a system of checkpoints and barriers, creating resource scarcity, etc.
Even the rhetoric about God giving the land to the ruling ethnic group (who in both cases had ancestors subjected to concentration camps) is a similar narrative.
It's no coincidence that present-day South Africa has been one of the loudest voices calling for UN intervention in Gaza.
So the thing is: While the treatment of Palestinians in Israel proper does also constitute an Apartheid according to several organizations, I'm talking about the West Bank and Gaza here. Israel simply split Palestinians into different groups and subjects them to different levels of Apartheid. Palestinian Israelis are simply the people who were allowed oh so graciously by Israel to get the least bad level.
Also, your use of "mistreatment" is a massive understatement. Many people in high government positions in Israel want to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
See: https://thewire.in/world/israeli-government-population-transfer-gaza-strip
You think you're defending Israel but you're actually doing a much worse service to it. If Israel is guilty of apartheid, which I think it is, it has a clear path to redemption. If however the Israeli crimes are sui generis, then we end up with a whole new class of crime against humanity called "the crime Israel is doing to the Palestinians", for which the international order has no precedent for how to redeem. And that's a huge danger for Israel because it opens up the space of possible reactions, much much more widely than apartheid.
The crime Israel is doing to Palestinians (I've seen Nakba suggested as a name, so I'll use it for brevity) extends beyond Apartheid. The Nakba's intent is to take apart Palestinians' ability to exist as a political collective by dividing them and implementing varying levels of Apartheid and violence against them, up to and including genocide. This goes beyond South African Apartheid, whose goal was for black people to serve white people. The Nakba is meant to destroy Palestinians as an entity capable of having political will. This is why they're currently divided into Israeli citizens, East Jerusalemites, Gazans and West Bankers, with the goal of eventually ethnically cleansing the latter two (along with East Jerusalemites on a larger timescale).
The Nakba includes Apartheid as one of its components, but it's not Apartheid.
I just imagine a world where Arabs didn't try to kill jews moving to the region in the lead up to WWII. I wonder if that would have changed anything in terms of now.
I just imagine a world where the Jews who immigrated to Palestine didn't force my family out at gunpoint and under the threat of massacre (Deir Yaseen) in 1947/8, that eventually led to their ethnic cleansing.
But we can all dream.
They also bombed the embassy in mandatory Palestine and were subsequently found hiding weapons and fighters in schools, hospitals and synagogues.
We can draw comparisons but the more you look the more they look the same.
Do not downplay what Israel does by pretending it's better than South African Apartheid.
Yeah, to use the term apartheid is not accurate to explain the atrocity. Don't overplay 'apartheid', it's not the accurate term. We need a stronger term here; could be zionistheid or Israelitheid.
I've heard the term "Nakba" suggested as a name for the brand new crime against humanity Israel created.
or you have pogrom, or ethnic cleansing which is what it is
yeah. but the term haven't got much traction outside of the Arabic-speaking populations.