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
Not accepting israels right to exist is a call for genocide against israel. Israel exists and has the right to exist. You can recognize that and still be against Netanyahus government.
By that logic the creation of israel was a genocidal act in itself because it created a right for a people to eist where others were existing previously.
If removing the right to exist of the Palestinian people is perfectly acceptable why is it necessary to keep chanting support for the rights of the aggressor?
Yes, opposing the establishment of a new state with a new population where someone else already lived would have been appropriate in the late 1940s.
Unfortunately it's 2024 now, Israel does exist and time is linear.
So the only thing that can be done now is to recognize neither Israel nor Palestine should be erased.
(Though pointing out that the latter doesn't seem to get mentioned here would be appropriate.)
It was always a contentious issue, there was just a lot of sympathy for the jewish people given the circumstances. Right being right, a portion of Germany should have been given. Instead the issue was exported to be dealt with remotely to the detriment of a different people who were wholly uninvolved.
At the moment, any defense of Israel's right to exist is used to excuse a very clear land grab. Israel has the right to eist within is Israel only.
That means that if you commit a crime and wait long enough, it's legitimized. No way in hell.
Unfortunately that's exactly how it works.
Look at any country's border and tell me which ones weren't established by violence.
The actual question is, what alternative to accepting Israel's existence would you propose. Because forcefully removing them would just be one more crime.
Forcefully drawing a border less encouraging of violence against native population. Also forcefully stopping all their meddling in the form of military occupation, blockade, block posts and so on. Arming their neighbors so that Israel doesn't have such a military advantage.
Israeli jews have the right to life, freedom, safety. They have the right to a home in the Holy Lands.
They don't have the right to set up a Jewish supremacist apartheid state to deny the same rights to everyone else.
The state that they have created and entrenched with genocide and "facts on the ground" no longer has legitimacy to exist in its present form. Because of its entrenchment I don't see how it can be reformed.
So instead, ending this political entity to establish a new democratic one seems to be the surest way out of this mess.
This is not a call for genocide by any stretch of imagination.
Israel is not the people. The people can continue to exist under different countries and governments.
It isnt. No settler state has a right to exist, the settlers already there should integrate into the indigenous culture or leave. This includes the US, Canada, Australia and so on.
I agree, we all need to move back to Africa. All 8 billion of us.
migration =/= colonialism
Unless you're asserting that none of your ancestors have ever claimed land at the expense of somebody else, you're a colonist.
For all its faults and crimes, and Lord knows there are many, the country I'm in isn't oppressing a people native to this region.
My point being, go far enough back, and you WILL have found a people or tribe that got wiped out so another group could claim their territory. Where do you (arbitrarily) draw the line?
Words like "colonialism" or "settler colonialism" serve the purpose of naming injustices committed by empires.
They arent just bound to a space but also to a time. So the ongoing oppression against native palestinians, native americans etc is settler colonialism since it is about a people taking land from them without compensation. The roman empire also did settler colonialism. The difference is that the settler romans and indigenous population at this point are indistinguishable from each other. Through intermarriages and cultural exchanges there is not a roman-german and a germanic-german culture. And where there are cultural differences stemming from the days of roman settlerism these now coexist. There is no oppressor-oppressed dynamic anymore that characterizes settler colonialism.
So what you're saying is, if one side fully wipes out and/or swallows up the other fully, colonialism is then ok. How is that different from what Israel is currently trying to accomplish? If they succeed, in a century or two somebody would be saying the same thing you are now.
no im not wtf
Colonialism is not a rare event, it happens ALL THE TIME, EVERYWHERE. If you're only finding fault with the ongoing efforts, and giving the rest a pass because they are no longer visible in your day-to-day life, you are effectively saying success justifies it. Otherwise, you're just being arbitrary and inconsistent.
Huh? How does that follow? If there is no longer injustice from an oppressor-oppressed dynamic then what is there to do? And how does the fact that it's no longer possible to make right justify the crime?
Edit: I don't even know what point you are trying to argue, my original statement was that states which are engaging in settler colonialism should be dismantled and dont have a right to exist. There can be other reasons to dismantle states forcibly (capitalism being the predominant one), this is but one of them. A rather egregious one.
The point that I and others have made, is that all states in existence today are ultimately founded on colonialism. It's disingenuous to suggest that some are innocent of it. They are not, they merely finished earlier. Given that, why do some states deserve to be dismantled but not others?
If the purpose is to halt the process of colonialism, there are ways to do so that are less drastic and controversial, and more likely to have a net positive result for all parties involved (or happen at all).
This includes Functionally EVERY state with incredibly few if any exceptions. Whens your line for when a conqueror becomes a local?
migration =/= colonialism
To expand on this, the oppression of the indigenous peoples of these nations is ongoing. Its not in the past its still happening. Thats the line.