this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
-3 points (44.0% liked)

Global News

4132 readers
502 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.


Post guidelines

Title formatPost title should mirror the news source title.
URL formatPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefixCountry prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.


Rules

This community is moderated in accordance with the principles outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition to this foundational principle, we have some additional rules to ensure a respectful and constructive environment for all users.

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media postsAvoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Nattapong Pinta, a Thai agricultural worker, was abducted during the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Kibbutz Nir Oz and later murdered by the Mujahideen Brigades, a lesser-known Palestinian militant group, highlighting the diverse terror networks active in Gaza beyond Hamas.

The recovery of Pinta’s body in Rafah by Israeli forces, as reported by Defense Minister Israel Katz on June 7, 2025, underscores the ongoing complexity of hostage situations, with data from the UN OCHA indicating over 54,000 Palestinian deaths since the conflict escalated, reflecting the scale of violence.

The incident challenges narratives of a singular "jihadist brutality" by revealing multiple actors, while historical context from Wikipedia notes that Palestinian militant infiltration and violence have roots in the 1950s, evolving with groups like Hamas using suicide bombings to derail peace processes since the 1990s.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 3 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

i don't see you on a single post about israeli crimes and you think you smart and can fool people into thinking you don't support the terrorist state of israel

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I choose the side not killing innocent people. Violence breads violence.

The leadership Israel is committing genocide. That doesn't mean that the opposite side are Angles. They just have less military force to kill with.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

You are right Violence begets Violence that's why 7 of October atrocities happened. Israel started violence by occupying Gaza and the west bank in 67 and continued to kill Palestinians regularly.

7 of October is everybody fault especially the west with their strong economies that could have stopped Israel in 67 with extremity sanctions and kept ignoring decades of Israeli terrorisms. Before the 7 of October atrocities the whole western world was sleeping m only wake up for few minutes every time Palestinians retaliate after settlers violence , creation of new settlements or Palestinians whole neighborhoods to be evicted like in Sheikh Jarrah

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 47 minutes ago

In short, it is a mess

It is almost like you shouldn't promise the same land to to different groups of people looks at UN

[–] Gorilladrums@lemmy.world -2 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Let me ask you a straight forward question, do you support the Oct 7th terrorist attacks? It's a simple yes or no question.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

No. Now answer this question do you condemn Israel 77 years of terrorism and do you support attacks on idf terrorists?

[–] Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

No, I don't support them, I'm glad we're on the same page. My whole point is that terrorism should be universally condemned.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

what about attacking the idf terrorists?

[–] Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

We have to make several distinctions.

  1. Just like how Hamas isn't all Palestinians, the IDF isn't all Israelis
  2. Israel has mandatory conscription so most adults in the country were in the military at one point or another
  3. Due to the previous point, calling all Israeli adults "IDF terrorists" is just as stupid and brainless as far right Zionists calling all male Palestinians above the age of 15 "Hamas terrorists"
  4. By extension attacking people who are not armed and uniformed is just an attack unarmed civilians

So by using the above parameters, Israel and Palestine attacking each other is only ever justified when:

  1. They're attacking a legitimate military target
  2. They're not intentionally attacking or targeting civilians

So for example, if a Palestinian group launched rockets at an IDF airbase that is being used to bomb Gaza, that would be a justified attack. However, if the same groups goes into an Israeli town and kills an entire family in their house because someone in there served in the IDF at some point is not justified. The same goes the other way, Israel bombing an actual Hamas weapons stash is justified, but them bombing a hospital is not.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

We agree about civilians but occupying forces should simply end occupation. None of their military actions is legal similar to Russia military operation on Ukraine army is illegal

[–] Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

occupying forces should simply end occupation

But what exactly does that mean in this case? Like, what is the end result that you're hoping would become reality.

For me, this would mean Israel completely pulling out of the West Bank and Gaza and letting Palestine become an actual state. From that point on, they would cease hostilities and establish a no first use policy where one can only attack the other if it was attacked first. This is my ideal outcome as it gives both people self determination.

None of their military actions is legal similar to Russia military operation on Ukraine army is illegal

But we're not talking about legality, we're talking about the morality of using terrorism as a mean of achieving anything. The principle holds true regardless of conflict.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

But what exactly does that mean in this case? Like, what is the end result that you're hoping would become reality.

A one state solution would be the best solution. If not a two state solution, the problem with the two state solution is that Israel will kick out Arab Israelis from Israel and settlers will be kicked out from the west bank

But we're not talking about legality, we're talking about the morality of using terrorism as a mean of achieving anything. The principle holds true regardless of conflict.

Morality say that we should support the oppressed side . We can hold anybody who is responsible of war crimes and terrorists accountable once occupation end from both side

[–] Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

A one state solution would be the best solution. If not a two state solution, the problem with the two state solution is that Israel will kick out Arab Israelis from Israel and settlers will be kicked out from the west bank

Oh, that is a good point. It's crazy to think about, but a population exchange will end up displacing around 3 million people.

The issue with the one state solution is that both sides reject living along side each other, let alone under the rule of the other. In order for a one state solution to work, both need to be able to accept coexistence and support full rights for all, but that's a tall order considering how much they hate each other.

I think we're heading towards a single Israeli state that encompasses all the territory regardless. I just hope that the Israeli left will win out and use the country's democratic institutions to push giving the Palestinians they annexed or will annex their full rights, and by doing so hopefully make the Palestinian population abandon the militant groups.

Morality say that we should support the oppressed side. We can hold anybody who is responsible of war crimes and terrorists accountable once occupation end from both side

I disagree. Morality isn't about supporting sides, it's about rejecting harmful behaviors universally. For example, we can both agree that Palestinians in Gaza are oppressed. But these people are facing layers oppression. Israel is oppressing them with an ethnic cleansing campaign, Egypt is adding on to it by helping enforce the blockade, Hamas and the other militant groups inside Gaza are piling on the oppression by ruling the strip with tyranny. These are all parties responsible for an immoral injustice against the same people, yet they are enemies. Supporting one over the other instead of opposing all of them is just helping perpetuate a cycle of oppression. What these people need is a clean slate, not a slightly less oppressive slate.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Even in case of a two state solution. Israel and palestine land is all connected nothing separate them. If you believe the two population don't want peace then violence will still continue regardless of if it is a one state or two state

[–] Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I mean that is the case, at least per the polling. I wonder what the right path would be to deradicalize two populations that hate each other.

[–] rumimevlevi@lemmings.world 1 points 2 hours ago

A good Truth and Reconciliation plan like in any other major conflict

[–] stink@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 hours ago

Except the people in those "israeli" towns are illegally occupying the land.

[–] stink@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 hours ago

I do. And it was legal according to international law. What about it?

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

That isn't a straight forward question and I think you know that

Don't pick arguments just to argue. You are putting coal into the fire. This is rage bait.

[–] Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

But it is straightforward for anybody with the bare minimum levels of morality. Terrorists attacks are bad, end of story. If you find yourself trying to justify terrorism then you've gone off the deep end.