this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
199 points (95.9% liked)

World News

39142 readers
3740 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Palestinians in the West Bank are largely pessimistic about Donald Trump’s re-election, viewing it as unlikely to significantly worsen their already dire situation, though some fear it could embolden Israeli actions.

Trump’s support for Israel’s far-right policies, including the potential dismantling of the UN agency Unrwa and backing of Israeli settlements, could deepen economic hardship and escalate violence against Palestinians.

While some Palestinians worry about increased oppression, others see a Trump presidency as a chance to expose brutal realities, possibly sparking stronger resistance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It also means that we didn't want to make the one genocide they're always on about even worse.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Seriously. "Harris is supporting genocide by being part of an administration selling weapons to Israel, so I'll let the guy who told Netanyahu to finish the job on national TV win." What the fuck?

I actually had someone tell me a month or so back that genocide is as bad as it gets and you can't make it worse once it's genocide.

These people will lie to themselves about anything rather than take some fucking responsibility.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 20 points 2 weeks ago

They also wholly disregard that:

  • "Weapons" is not a singular thing. There are defensive weapons, and offensive weapons. There is no method for undoing sales of defensive weapons. Congress says send 'em; they get sent.
  • Offensive weapons can be paused, if said weapons are likely to be used in inhuman ways. In fact, Biden did exactly that -- after House Republicans passed a bill to prevent him from doing it. That bill never made the floor of the Democratically controlled Senate.
  • Congress is in charge of sending those weapons, not the president. If someone wants to "both sides" that one, I'm fine with that. But now that it's looking like all three branches of government are going to be under fascist control, I'm not holding my breath about Congress changing their stance on any weapons sales to Israel, unless that change is MOAR WEPONZ.
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 weeks ago

I actually had someone tell me a month or so back that genocide is as bad as it gets and you can't make it worse once it's genocide

This was a very common argument I saw. Unfortunately, I think there are people who bought it. It's so ahistorical, and nobody seems to know anything about the conditions in Germany pre-WW2 (or probably most of the atrocities that the Nazis committed).

There are levels to this shit, it's not just an on/off switch.