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 !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
view the rest of the comments
Hopefully this is a step toward dismantling the brutal apartheid regime that has colonised Palestine for 76 years.
... What?
THEY SAID HOPEFULLY THIS IS A STEP TOWARD DISMANTLING THE BRUTAL APARTHEID REGIME THAT HAS COLONIZED PALESTINE FOR 76 YEARS
Whadda ya, stoopid or sumpthin'?
They are saying they hope it will lead to the end of Israel.
Or at a minimum, getting Israel out of the internationally recognized Palestinian Territories (West bank, Gaza) and allowing Palestinians to self-rule.
That's an intrepretation only possible if you ignore most of that post.
The logical interpretation after reading the entire post is that they hope this will lead to the end of Appartheid in Israel.
Or are you saying that there is no possible way for Israel to exist either than as an ultra racist etnostate that systemically discriminates against a part of its population based on their etnicity? Because that's the only way you could logically claim that Israel without Appartheid would not exist.
Not who you're asking but as a citizen of a country that's working through that transition I hope it could be possible, but fear it will take decades.
So far it's working in South Africa, for all the problems it had and is having, as well as in what used to be Jugoslavia, and there is a very long History of etnically diverse populations either ending up cohexisting or segregating into separate independent nations without being constantly at war with each other.
I would even go as far as saying that integration (willful or forced) or peaceful separation into two states are far more common situations than an etnostate successfully suppressing a population without ending up murdering or expelling the entirety of the second largest etnicity.
If you look at History, most conquering of land succeeds because the conqueror actually wants the locals to subject to the rule of the elites of said conqueror rather than pushing them all out, so the people of the conquered territory generally end up integrated into the culture of the conquering nation.
The really special thing with Israel is that it's an etnostate with a core principle that one etnicity is "favoured by God" whilst trying to pass itself as a Democracy, which is also a conqueror in somebody else's land, so fully integrating people with equal rights from a large different etnicity that live in that conquered land (something which would be real Democracy) would directly go against the core etnostate principl (as those other people are not from the "favoured by God" etnicity) and would even change the way the conqueror is ruled because equal rights for a sizeable majority means equal voting rights.
So over the years the leadership in Israel has threaded a thin line where they integrated only a few of the local etnicity in order to seem Democratic but not enough for them to actually have real power versus the etnic majority, and only did so by giving them second class rights, while at the same times using techniques like outright giving on Israeli nationality with full rights to anybody from the favoured etnicity who are not yet Israelis in order to boost the number of that etnicity in Israel. So a small number of people from the not-favoured etnicity are second class citiziens, whilst the vast majority of them kept entirelly powerless (with not even second class citizenship), not just in the conquered land but also in Israel proper.
IMHO a Democracy as a conquering nation can only ultimatelly live in peace in that situation if the people in the conquered land are integrated into it (so equal citizens with equal votes) or live so far away from the conqueror's mainland that they can be kept oppressed and their violence does not reach the mainland (and as we've seen when the US did things like conquer Iraq, that doesn't last), and Israel because of being an etnostate can never accept integrating people from a different etnicity and at the same time sits right next to the very people whose land it conquered and which it oppresses because it cannot integrate them and still remain an etnostate.
There are only three ways for there to be Peace in this situation:
I would say that most outsiders who are not rabidly pro-Israel are aiming for the last one.
Your interpretation is only possible if you didn't read the post fully. It said it wanted to dismantle the apartheid regime, not to dismantle apartheid. The regime is the Israeli government.
Of course it's the Israeli Government, same as the South African Appartheid government had to be dismantled to end Appartheid there, the Fascist Government in Greece had to be dismantled to bring Democracy there and the Communist Government in Poland had to be dismantled to bring Democracy there.
It's hardly big fat news that the Zionists have to go for there to be peace in the region.
Since "country" is not at all the same as "regime", wanting the end of a regime is not at all the same as wanting the end of the country, as the current status of all the countries I mentioned in my examples above (all alive and well) shows.
Your claim that people hoped for the end of Israel (the country) is not supported by you pointing out that those people want to dismantle the regime, because they're quite different things and the latter absolutelly can be dismantled without the "end" of the former (in my examples above the countries didn't even suffer, quite the contrary: all those countries are better of now that those regimes were dismantled than they were before).
Dismantle verb
To get rid of a system or organization, usually over a period of time:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/dismantle
Except this guy specifically said he hopes the current Israel is dismantled. At best they could be hoping that Israel changes into a better government, but I don't think that's their meaning.
No where does that say dismantling Israel.
So who are they talking about then?
Dismantling Israel as an apartheid state and replacing it with a secular binational state that has equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis?
Well that can't be what he thinks, I listed that as an option in my original response
But he clearly said
So what entity which has colonized Palestine for 76 years, but isn't the current Israel does he mean?
EDIT: Words have meaning, if the words you use don't mean what you mean, then admit that you used the wrong words and be more clear or else people must assume you mean what you say. Coming in after the OP and attributing meaning that they didn't give doesn't suddenly change what they said. A reminder, the original post was;
Dismantling the regime. If someone said we need to eliminate the Chinese Communist regime, would you think they want to destroy the entirety of China?
I know I said we need to be clear in our language, but since we were talking about a "regime" from the beginning I didn't think I had to continuously spell it out throughout the discussion. Yes, we're talking about whatever regime is being referenced, but again the last guy said it wasn't Israel.
Regime Noun
a particular government or a system or method of government:
Your comparison between China and Israel is really terrible. If we're being super duper clear on what a regime is, it's the system of government. Israel is a parliamentary democracy, all citizens over the age of 18 can vote. Since the regime is democratically elected it's kinda hard to differentiate the Israeli people from their Regime. China on the other hand is a unitary one-party state, if you're not in the party and at the right level of the party then you don't have any voice. It's a lot easier to separate the people of China from their government.
So you do agree that Israel is a colonizer country?
I don't really like the use of the word colonizer in this context, it just doesn't fit right with me. The definition technically fits, but colonization to me is more like an invasive species moving in and slowly overwhelming the native population. This is more akin to what we were seeing with settlers moving into the West Bank.
What's going on in Gaza is more akin to straight up scorched earth takeover and land theft. Hell, calling it an invasion and genocide feels more accurate.
I never said I was ok with what Israel is doing, my argument was on the meaning of words. Leftists in general are really terrible about saying what they mean, because they don't seem to know the meaning of the words they use.
The cycle seems to go like this:
I am sorry for the hard time you have here. People just want to see their believes confirmed.
Hey, I appreciate your response! I totally understand that people want to have their feelings confirmed in such a space, but that's also why I am critical in it. In this sort of environment the discussion is almost as much emotion and feeling as it is the words actually used. A sort of slang can develop where we can understand what each other means without the words we use being truly accurate. The problem with that is that this environment is also an echo chamber, we put meaning onto things that we want it to mean because it also confirms our beliefs.
This leads to situations where it's impossible to differentiate between radical statements and reasonable statements. A good example is the chant, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." When both extremists and normies use the saying it becomes hard to differentiate them. Another example is the Gadsden flag, on it's own there is nothing wrong with the flag with a deep historical heritage, but when the far right started using it as a symbol any rational centrist or leftist immediately stopped using it for fear of association. Back in school I had a friend who had the flag hanging on their wall, but around 2012 they specifically stated that they had taken it down because it had been co-opted by the far right.