67
Hezbollah and Hamas flags waved during pro-Palestinian demonstration in New York
(today.lorientlejour.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
67 points (72.8% liked)
World News
38563 readers
2698 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Meaning that we could be talking about one or two flags shown through a distorted media lens.
That said, it should be on the demonstrators to ensure people waving such flags get put at the margins and I hope that is what is happening.
I think that any coverage should simply ask organizers to comment.
This is such a propaganda tactic: no one can stop someone from showing up with any flag they want. If the organizers embrace it? Then the criticism is fair game.
But if they say something like 'out of thousands of protesters who share our demand for peace, several brought inflammatory messages that don't represent us', then media has a duty to report that.
Organizers are rarely asked to comment by the media during these protests.
The latest Some More News talked about that a lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgN3gO0_LLU
Oh, that's cool! I'm excited to check this out. I like their content. I don't love it enough to keep up with it (especially because they're a little long) but I'm interested to hear their take.
It's an especially good episode in my opinion.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=XgN3gO0_LLU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That's usually the argument leveraged against platforms that don't fold to demands to deplatform individuals with reprehensible views.
The good old "You're either with us or against us" spiel is excellent at destroying any nuance.
This is the standard that was applied when a few nazi flags showed up at convoy rallies. You either need to reclaim the cause for your protest, or admit that it actually stands for something else and then ask yourself if you want to be part of that.
Did the convoy involve a genocide?
No, but I'm also not sure where you are going with that question. I suppose hezbollah flags directly have something to do with the Palestine protests, whereas nazi flags didn't really have anything to do with the convoy, so maybe it's more understandable to have hezbollah/hamas flags there. But they are still terrorists, right? Or are we OK with them now? I'm just not sure what you mean.
I don't agree with them but this:
That's a loaded question.
Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
The first part that needs to be dealt with is "unlawful." Who's laws? The issue is states get to arbitrarily define terrorism. If a state does terrorism, they get to say it's something else.
Second: "violence and intimidation... in the pursuit of political aims." OK, so all militaries do this part. That's the point of a military. If this part is wrong then all states are wrong.
OK, so essentially the issue is defining "terrorism" as a bad thing. It isn't necessarily. It's using the means of the state against a state. That is all. It can be bad, but so can the actions of a state. It can also be good. If only states are allowed to use violence then they will use violence to suppress voices they disagree with, and there's nothing that can be done about it.
We've got to stop using the term terrorism. It's a term of the media. It isn't useful in a real discussion. It is a term used to drive hatred and fear even if the ones using it are the ones on the receiving end of most of the violence. The media will never use the word to refer to state actions that they agree with. Stop using their language.
I guess it comes down to whether the laws are just or unjust, if the state that makes the laws is good or bad. When you have a clash of cultures that are not compatible with each other, or different states with incompatible ideas, there will be a winner and a loser, where the winner makes the laws and therefore determines what constitutes "terrorism". But just because one culture won, doesn't mean that it is just or good. It could be the good guys in charge, or just as easily the bad guys. It depends not so much on good or bad, but on military power. So how do you know when it's the good guys in charge? If the "bad guys" of today, the "terrorists", were in charge instead and you and I were on the other end of the power dynamic, would it be a better world? Would we be resorting to violence against citizens and against the state in order to further our political cause? Hard to say. Most of us would probably assimilate into their culture, but certainly some of us would be the new resistance, the new terrorists, killing innocents because we believed that strongly in our cause.
But this is all based on the assumption that laws and power dynamics will always exist, that they are in fact necessary. Someone will always be in charge, and others will wish they were, and will be willing to resort to violence to get the power or to break the laws. Do you envision a world where power dynamics and laws don't exist? I can't see it.
See, the difference is that the people at the convoy were given a chance to disavow the Nazis as the media talks to the organizers. The people at these protests are called Hamas sympathizers and the organizers are not even contacted by the media.
But the organizers at these anti-genocide protests seem never to be interviewed by the media. Do you think it's because they're hiding?
Yeah maybe they were contacted, I don't recall. And yes the organizers should be available for interviews, and should also be given a chance to clarify what they stand for, what their message is and who the big backers are. That way you can get an idea of what they ACTUALLY stand for and not just what the leader says.
Some of the people in that movement thought so. From things they read on the internet, they were led to believe that covid was part of a plan to kill millions of people.
Don't believe everything you read on the internet, kids. It may lead you to get so emotional over genocide claims that you end up being associated with some actual genocidal groups.
Thinking there is a genocide because of stupidity is not the same as an actual genocide. Which is what is going on.
People claim abortion is genocide too. It is also not genocide. Just because you claim something is genocide, it doesn't mean it is. Experts tend to have to weigh in. And they have in the case of Gaza and have determined it is a genocide.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/anatomy-of-a-genocide-report-of-the-special-rapporteur-on-the-situation-of-human-rights-in-the-palestinian-territory-occupied-since-1967-to-human-rights-council-advance-unedited-version-a-hrc-55/
So maybe don't conflate the two, unless you are one of those kooks who believe COVID was a genocide, something not a single expert believes.
So... was COVID a genocide? Do you think those stupid unJesusy scientifimagicians are wrong and the Queen of Canada is right or is this a totally different situation?
The problem is 60-70% of Palestine supports Hamas. This isn't a fringe group waving flags around.
I'd like to see where you got that figure from. Regardless, this Lemmy, not Palestine. We're talking about what people "usually" believe on Lemmy.
It's not pretty... https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/
People on Lemmy seem to think Hamas just wants to bring unicorns and rainbows to the region. When in reality, they'd stone most of the users here for their views.
It's all weird. I don't know what kind of social engineering they did to make it OK to kill 1000 civilians, but their campaign was wildly successful.
I can't help but notice they didn't actually link to the survey, which doesn't let me know exactly what was asked, what the sample size was, where the samples were taken from, etc.
Regardless... this is not Palestine. It is Lemmy. The vast majority of people on Lemmy are very unlikely to be Palestinian considering their percentage of the global population.
You claimed, in a discussion about comments on Lemmy that usually, the people against this genocide support Hamas.
Which, again, I think is both offensive and wrong.
Here is a direct link to the most recent survey for what it’s worth. I personally would be careful about reading too much into the numbers though.
Public Opinion Poll No (92)
26 May-1 June 2024
My point is Palestine as a whole or even partially support Hamas. Go Google it...you'll see from 30-90 percent support.
Only a couple of Hamas flags flying would surprise me.
My apologies, I got my conversation with you mixed up with a conversation with someone else.
But I will say support within Palestine should not reflect support in New York City. The situations are entirely different. Jewish Voices for Peace is a huge element in protests there and I doubt they're big fans of Hamas.
First, for supporters of Palestinian liberation who are unclear: @chakan2@lemmy.world is correct. Palestinians largely endorse Hamas at this point, and believe that the attack on Oct. 7 was a justified response to their treatment by Israel. I understand that this is inconvenient for those of us who support Palestinian liberation but do not approve of Hamas' tactics, but it's a reality that we need to accept and move forward on. I don't believe that the endorsement of genocide by Palestinian civilians robs them of their right to life any more than I believe the widespread endorsement of genocide within Israeli public life after Oct. 7 robs them of their right to life and dignity as well.
As for your question, the short answer is that people aren't good at crafting a nuanced stance on multi-axis conflicts with no clear Galactic Empire style baddy and a plucky, ethical resistance. Ultimately, many people have concluded that the Israeli government has more blood on their hands and a greater responsibility for Hamas' use of violence than Hamas does. And so they're inclined to view pro-Israeli stances skeptically in a blanket way.
As for the article: I think this is always distraction. I want Hamas and Israel to accept the terms of the current ceasefire, and return the hostages, withdraw from Gaza, and begin a peace process. I want Biden to use leverage to make that happen, and to stop financing and arming the genocide, regardless of what flags people carry in the streets.
If you live in NY, well then this matters. Figure out your communities. But for the rest of this, it's just a smear job on Palestinian rights activism.
When it comes to those numbers -- on both sides, btw -- it's important to note that neither side is consuming media that is in any shape or form neutral. Journalists on both sides rely on people tuning in so even the most well-intentioned are forced to be, at the very least, quite selective in their reporting. The whole situation is too awash with propaganda for things to play out differently, putting an edge to it if you see that the other side is accusing your side of sacrificing children to Satan and eating them, you're not very likely to believe their accusations of your fighters indiscriminately killing civilians.
Source?
How many Israelis support idf or Israel? Hamas and Hezbollah flags are the equivalent to Israeli flags since they are terrorists organizations and governments. Usa supports only one of the terrorists though...I would argue Hamas are rebel fighters. Rebels use terrorism against regimes and occupying forces that kill locals in this case genocide and colonize Palestinians.
Idk hezbollahs deal not informed enough
Do freedom fighters also intentionally hold up in schools, hospitals, and crowded places so they can use civilians as human shields? Do freedom fighters steal free aid meant for the people and force them to buy it back from them or starve? Do freedom fighters typically have their leader living the high life in another country while the people they're supposedly fighting for suffer?