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/
What infuriates me is this:
“[T]he United States has made clear that it will block Palestinian membership and statehood until direct negotiations with Israel resolve key issues, including security, boundaries and the future of Jerusalem.”
Why does Israel get membership in the UN, if these are preconditions for membership? Israel will never agree to Palestinian membership. A stable Palestinian state will likely never exist until Israel is defeated militarily and has no choice but to accept it.
When statements don't make sense, i find it helpful to cut out any part that offends logic and see if it becomes clearer. In this case i apply it like this:
“[T]he United States has made clear that it will block Palestinian membership and statehood.
There! The other parts were extraenous fluff to soften their perceived position.
(I know you already grok their position, I'm just sayin its a hack i like.)
That definitely does make it clearer... On a side note, I can appreciate a Stranger in a Strange Land reference when I see one.
Never is a strong word.
Until 1995, when Israeli PM Rabin was assassinated by a right winger, they were moving towards a two state solution, to the point of the IDF forcibly removing their own Jewish settlements from the lands of the prospective Palestinian state.
After the assassination, Netanyahu became the next PM, and has served in the position for most of the time since, asides most of a decade in the 2000s where other Likud politicians held it. He reversed the policy of settler removal.
Try not to conflate the entire country with the crazy right winger leadership they have currently. The same leadership of strongmen that catastrophically failed to keep them safe back in October, which is the one single thing such a man says he is supposed to be good at.
All that said, I also support Palestinian entry as a UN member state, and am tired of the US unfairly favoring its treaty ally in this case.
After 50 years and heavy Palestinian concessions a state is almost established with heavy external pressure
Extremists from Netanyahus party assasinate the israeli PM. Wife of Rabin blames Netanyahu foe his death
Israel votes Netanyahu into power along with an extreme right wing cabinet and openly gets far more Genocidal than in the past
No guys this totally doesn't represent israel
This is israel. It is what is has always been. A Nazi Apartheid state.
It seems contradictory to me to say it has always been pursing genocide, when one of the elected politicians was moving in the other direction for years. A bit selective.
Perhaps we could look at the voter tallys in 1996, where Netanyahu won 1,501,023 to 1,471,566, and the events that were influencing the Israeli public at the time? It certainly doesn't help when there's 14 suicide bombings happening in Israel between 1993 and 1995 during the peace process. Being bombed generally does drive people towards militarism.
Regardless of the past, though, Israel is there now. With its nuclear arsenal, it will not be destroyed any time soon unless Iran somehow nukes it off the map through its missile defense. So, negotiation seems necessary.
The issue isn't Netanyahu. Well he's a compounding issue but the core problem is that everyone but the leftest of lefties stopped believing in the peace process after Rabin's assassination. As the Haaretz said: Yigal Amir won. The right-wing approach to security, "antagonise Palestinians into submission", never got challenged by anyone since Rabin's death. Maybe it'll now get challenged as October 7th happened on the right's watch, so obviously they can't provide security, but don't expect the Israeli people to realise that in a fortnight, so far little is happening: The press is self-censoring because they know no Israeli wants to even look at what the IDF is doing in Gaza and the West Bank, protests are about Netanyahu's corruption (which is pretty much the only thing distinguishing him and Gantz, not politics) as well as families of hostages complaining about the Kahanites being more interested in killing Arabs than getting their relatives back. It's not (necessarily) the war they're opposed to but the priorities.
To whatever extent Israeli civilians are more moderate, they’ve never truly been able to affect change. Israel’s history only started with a terrorist campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Rabin’s efforts are truly exceptional in Israel’s history, and he was murdered for it. The return to genocide is simply a return to the norm.
Even if Israeli moderates were to win political power, it would only be temporary. Israeli terrorists saw no problem ethnically cleansing the land to invent their own state with only people they approved of, and if popular sentiment turns away, they no doubt would do it again to remove the new “undesirables”.
Thank you for reminding about the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.
Not enough people realize the extent and level of religious fanaticism that exists in Israel.
There decades since Yitzhak Rabin's assassination and Israel has lurched only further to the right. One of the greatest obstacles to peace has been Israel's continual land grabs and illegal settlement building. That has pretty much been cemented as nationalist policy. Ben Gvir is a psychopath and his rise is telling of how far Israel has embraced religious fanaticism.
No one, however, offends liberal and centrist Israelis quite like Itamar Ben-Gvir. Ben-Gvir, who entered parliament in 2021, leads a far-right party called Otzma Yehudit, or Jewish Power. His role model and ideological wellspring has long been Meir Kahane, a Brooklyn rabbi who moved to Israel in 1971 and, during a single term in the Knesset, tested the moral limits of the country. Israeli politicians strive to reconcile Israel’s identities as a Jewish state and a democracy. Kahane argued that “the idea of a democratic Jewish state is nonsense.” In his view, demographic trends would inevitably turn Israel’s non-Jews into a majority, and so the ideal solution was “the immediate transfer of the Arabs.” To Kahane, Arabs were “dogs” who “must sit quietly or get the hell out.” His rhetoric was so virulent that lawmakers from both sides of the aisle used to walk out of the Knesset when he spoke. His party, Kach (Thus), was finally barred from parliament in 1988. Jewish Power is an ideological offshoot of Kach; Ben-Gvir served as a Kach youth leader and has called Kahane a “saint.”
Ben-Gvir, who is forty-six, has been convicted on at least eight charges, including supporting a terrorist organization and incitement to racism, compiling a criminal record so long that, when he appeared before a judge, “we had to change the ink on the printer,” Dvir Kariv, a former official in the Shin Bet intelligence agency, told me. As recently as last October, Netanyahu refused to share a stage with him, or even to be seen with him in photographs. But a series of disappointing elections persuaded Netanyahu to change his mind.
I would still blame the entire country as long as thing like "aliyah" exist. The fact that any jewish person or a convert can immigrate to a stolen land is crazy to me.
Can't wait to see the list of US/Israel bootlickers that abstained from/voted against this, trying to deny an entire people the right to their own land.
“The United States voted against the resolution, along with Israel, Argentina, Czechia, Hungary, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Papua New Guinea.”
What the fuck Palau
Palau is basically a U.S. vassal state.
Having voted in a referendum against joining the Federated States of Micronesia in 1978,[11][12] the islands gained full sovereignty in 1994 under a Compact of Free Association with the United States.
Politically, Palau is a presidential republic in free association with the United States, which provides defense, funding, and access to social services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palau
Remember that when someone claims America isn't an empire.
Ahh yes, the mighty empire of... checks notes the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau.
You say that as if that's all America is. America controls a vast amount of land. It's the third largest country in the world and, unlike the first two largest (Russia and Canada), most of that land is also usable for either farming or resource extraction. But that's not the only reason it's an empire. It's also an empire because it has a large military presence in multiple countries who rely on it to supply defense at least in part. But another reason it's an empire is that it has vassal states. It doesn't matter how small those states are. Especially not when they are in strategic Pacific locations.
Fucking Milei
I hate that veto power exists in the U.N.
Veto power exists in the Security Council, not in the General Assembly. Unfortunately in this case, admission requires the Security Council to recommend a member be approved before the General Assembly can hold a vote.
I phrased it that way because the security council is part of the U.N., but you’ve provided an important explanation.
Ah thank you for clarifying this
Right? Because there is very power, the UN exists. But, because of veto power the UN is useless
That's by design. It's meant to be a forum for members to argue with diplomacy instead of going right to killing each other.