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
What's your solution, then? Overnight peace in the middle east?
I'd say the U.S. not offering Israel any more support until they open the borders to aid would go a long way to solving things.
But apparently that's going way beyond the pale.
And how exactly will that put food in the hands of the starving Palestinians?
Again with the "if it's not perfect, it's not worth doing" bullshit I'm so tired of hearing about this conflict.
Sorry... how will letting aid trucks into Gaza put food in the hands of starving Palestinians?
You know what aid trucks are, right?
Look we either spend a billion a year rebuilding this thing or we start looking for actual solutions to the problems we've caused. Do you want that? I thought so.
You can't be dense enough to believe that if the US stops sending Isreal aid, that suddenly Isreal will suddenly magically be completely disarmed, and aid trucks will suddenly be able to move freely. Aid trucks aren't even on the table.
Since that's not even close to what I said, no, that's not what I believe.
And what other conclusion is there to your answers?
Me: How would YOU put food into Palestinian hands?
You: Stop sending aid to Isreal.
Me: How does that put food in Palestinian hands?
You: Aid trucks
If that was what I said, you would be right. However, this is what I said:
I'm not sure why you think that sort of thing doesn't motivate a country we're giving billions of dollars in aid to, but it does.
However, this is what you said in response:
I said nothing about disarming Israel. And I know aid trucks are not on the table, because no one is motivating Israel to put them on the table. Again, withholding the billions of dollars in money and weapons we're sending to Israel would go a long way to getting them to let aid trucks in to feed people. You seem to be suggesting that not sending them more weapons than they already have is disarming them. Which it is not.
Or are you saying Israel doesn't need American money and weapons anyway? Then maybe America should just stop giving them money and weapons regardless.
My point is that stopping aid to Isreal won't put food in Palestinian bellies any time soon. And when they're starving right now, it's a useless gesture.
Actually doing what CAN be done right now, which is bypassing land chokepoints by building a non-perfect dock to offload millions of lbs of food, is the best solution I've heard of thus far, to actually stave off the immediate problem of starvation.
I'm not saying I approve of continuing to send military aid to Isreal. We can attack this from multiple fronts, but getting food and medical aid into Gaza is the most urgent need. And I don't find your efforts to undermine the most effective, if flawed, means of getting those supplies into Gaza to be helping the Palestinian's plight in the slightest.
You are either completely unknowledgable about the situation there or arguing in bad faith. But giving you the benefit of the doubt. There is more than enough aid waiting since months just outside the borders. Israel took over the Rafah crossing to Egypt, murdering two Egyptian soldiers in the process. There also enough aid is waiting.
By stopping to arm Israel the US might not provide food literally tomorrow, but within short time. That pier took over two months to build. More than enough time for the US to pressure Israel into behaving.
Again Israel could let in aid today if they wanted to. They could stop bombing hospitals, ambulances, aid workers, refugee shelters right now if they wanted to. The US could make them want that. And if simply cutting weapons wouldnt be enough the US could declare a no fly zone and break Israels chokeholds on the border crossings by force if necessary. The US could threaten and employ a sanctions regime that would threaten to vaporize the Israeli economy, making any government resign within days.
But the US doesnt do that. The US doesnt want that. The US wants to cover for this genocide and just pretend doing something about it, which is why they build an expensive pier for months that doesnt deliver aid and then breaks apart, while watching the single attempted aid delivery to be denied by the Israeli genocidal forces.
You claim I'm arguing in bad faith, but all your points make insanely huge assumptions on what the US is plausibly capable of forcing, and in an insanely short timespan. Particularly taking into account how little Isreal has been willing to negotiate in good faith currently and in past.
The Pier took 2 months to build. It took two weeks to repair. So claiming this to be an "insanely short time span" is already wrong. And it is not enough. The US would need to build another 5 of the same piers to bring in enough aid on that route, ignoring the need to distribute it, which Israel again is blocking. So would you rather build piers for ten months instead of stopping to send arms to the people who block the available land routes?
I would rather do both, because I find it incredibly unlikely that stopping arms shipments today would do anything at all to dampen Israel's ability to blockaid the land routes for a very long time. I also don't think Isreal is incapable of finding weapons suppliers outside of the US if push comes to shove.
So you're saying the U.S. has zero leverage on Israel?
No. I'm saying that relying on that leverage completely, and expecting a fast and complete solution, and allowing the Gazians to starve to death if that hailmerry doesn't work, is completely asinine.
And that's not even taking into account what the absolute 180 on foreign policy WRT Isreal will cost us in the short and long term. It could very possibly give the entire election over to the Republicans. Which would obviously be even worse for Gaza.
Fast and complete? This pier took two months to build. They could have spent that two months pressuring Israel to open aid corridors for trucking.
And I'm sorry, "we have to aid Israel in its genocide to stop the Republicans from winning" is a bullshit excuse.
And most likely have nothing to show for it. At least the dock has already achieved getting millions of pounds of aid into Gaza, and hopefully many more millions before it breaks again.
Maybe to you, but it's a real risk. Not everyone lives in this progressive bubble of yours. I have zero confidence in the voting public, and I have far less confidence that the Republicans won't actively encourage genocide in Gaza and beyond given the president and a majority in the other branches.
Why "most likely?" Based on what evidence?
And if you feel that you need to aid another nation to continue slaughtering children to save your own, maybe you don't have much worth saving.
See: the entire history of Isreal, and the middle east as a whole.
Geo-politics are complicated, and more complicated when your own country is currently fighting a fascist movement.
You dismiss the very notion that all but declaring war on Isreal could possibly have negative effects on the Dems political standing. And let's not mince words. Declaring no fly zones, DMZs and enacting sanctions, as you literally explicitly suggested, is one step away from declaring war.
~~And yet I've been accused of arguing in bad faith.~~ Right.
I didn't accuse you of arguing in bad faith, what are you talking about?
I did ask you for evidence, though, and you didn't provide any, so maybe I should accuse you of that, but I have not done so, so I'm not sure why you're suggesting I did.
There was a branch in this thread where someone else made the accusation. But fine, I retract the statement. It wasn't your words, so no point bringing it up.
I find the request for impossible evidence to be absurd. Since the US did not take the measures you proposed 2 months ago, there is no evidence to present for either of our sides.
I point to Netanyahu's recent and past decisions and complete unwillingness to make concessions, as well as how this conflict has been beneficial to his standing.
But obviously, we can't know for sure what would have happened. But Isreal has never been known to be easily forced, or even compromise to anything not vastly in their favor.
All of which has been done because U.S. aid has been given unconditionally this entire time, which was my point. The U.S. has leverage and isn't using it.
And your proof that using that leverage will achieve the desired result in a 2 month time frame is...?
I suppose the same level of proof that you have except that what I suggested has never been tried. Maybe it's time to try it now rather than wait another two months and hope for the best.