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
Because then the US any every other IAEA signatory would be obligated to sanction Israel which would be the end of Israel's economy.
No news media dares mention it because they have no proof and would both loose any insider access and get buried in libel cases.
Hahha there is tons of proof, if you use the standard the US used to claim Iraq had WMD and then invade them.
Difference being that Israel actually has nukes and does everything they can for a very long time to stop the IAEA from getting assigned to look at them...
...and Saddam actually let weapons inspectors in, because the only chemical weapons he still had were old artillery shells we fucking sold him in the 80s, ageing and leaking in a few armories that had been cordoned off as hazardous waste dumps.
....
Howabout the fact that Israel has a nuclear weapons doctrine?
That you can find random essays written by West Point grads in 30 seconds of websearching... that are about Israel's nuclear doctrine?
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/israel-samson-option-interconnected-world/
Despite Israel also having a 'nuclear ambiguity' policy?
Despite also Ephraim Katzir, Moshe Dayan, Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert all actually making public statements that Israel does have nuclear weapons?
That they caused a giant fucking scandal back in the 60s by stealing actual fissile material from NUMEC, a US company that uh, refines weapons grades uranium?
Look up 'Apollo Affair'.
That the CIA believed Israel had working nukes back in '75?
That they conducted a nuclear test in cooperation with South Africa in '79?
'Vela Incident'.
That the French helped them build an enrichment facility outside of Dimona in the Negev, that an unclassified US report released in 1980 concluded its had working, functional capacity since 1965?
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011997288&view=1up&seq=433
...
Why?
Why doesn't the world openly call out this bullshit?
Well it certainly couldn't have anything to do with Mossad and Jeffery Epstein, no sir, nothing like that, definitely not that.
Sorry for the confusion when I said "no proof". I meant "no official sources". Everyone knows Israel has nukes they just have to pretend they aren't for the legal reasons I stated.
I get what you are saying but there are extensive, publically released offcial documents from the US government that the US has been very much convinced Israel has had nukes since the 60s.
What... what kind of ... what can be more official than a declassified CIA document that says 'yeah we're pretty sure Israel has nukes'?
From all the minutes (transcripts) of Congressional hearings about the Apollo Affair, which also had FBI reports and CIA reports and I think the NSA as well?
I am not asking this rhetorically, to just belabor a point for emphasis.
I am asking you: If all this shit doesn't meet your 'official source' criteria... what does?
Its not my criteria, its about what will legally hold up in a US court against an AIPAC or ADL libel case. Remember, we're talking about reasons why news sources don't mention it. Not what I personally think is adequate proof.
Ooooh ok your framework is media don't say due to fear of being sued for libel.
Uh well, that...
Well ok.
If we pretend the rule of law still exists at that level, which it doesn't...
Then uh, all the media has to do is just bring up all this stuff, all these documents, have Seymour Hersh on to talk about it, read the quotes from former Israeli PMs, show the unclassified documents and just always give context and caveats... and then just ask 'Why is nobody taking this seriously? Why do we not have definitive answers?'
Assuming the rule of law as we knew it in say, 2018 existed, they'd be fine. Maybe the ADL or AIPAC could try to sue them, but it wouldn't work.
But this is all moot because if somebody, MSNBC or whatever, did that, today, what would happen is a Scientology style intimidation/terror/ruin your life campaign x100 on everyone something like 2 or 3 direct personal connections away from everyone speaking in that news segment, orchestrated by Mossad.
And/Or, the entire Republican apparatus doing the same. And then directing stochastic lethal terrorism at them, or just fuck you, executive order says you in particular go to CECOT, bye bye!
Or the Supreme Court just makes another completely nonsensical ruling that goes against centuries of precedent and effectively destroys the first ammendment.
Thats the actual reason why no one does this, at this moment.
...
The 'state of Israel' has no legal standing to... sue the US for reputational damages or making false claims.
They would also... in this hypothetical, you know, have to actually prove, in court, that... that they are being lied about.
AIPAC or the ADL would have to attempt to construe it as hate speech. Which wouldn't work in 2018 land where the law and legal system still exist and work and stuff.
Forced by who? The Republican Congress would likely say Iran deserved it, and even if they didn't Trump would dismantle any group the executive branch is supposed to use to enforce them as he was pushing for with Russia .
Their biggest trading partner is China .. not sure what they would do
It has nothing to do with a 'republican' congress.
Democrats wouldn't stand up to Israel either and you're delusional if you think otherwise.
Were you in a coma for all of last year?
Irony
You know that they put the sanctions on Russia right, even with a Republican Congress. Or do you forget how the sanctions were held until Trump came into office and stopped allowing the executive branch to uphold them?
That means democrats would stand up to Israel?
This is what I mean by delusion. You people are so far gone you can't even realize it.
Sanctioning Israel if they dropped a nuke on Iran? Absolutely. I'm not even a democrat but you are living in another world if you think they wouldn't. What realm of insanity are you living in.
Post a nuke being dropped Iran only gains sympathy for standing up for the Palestinians.
Democrat Congress members are idiots who were way behind on what their constituents wanted and had money funneled to them. But there is no way they would be able to support Israel after that and ever be elected again
They wouldn't even stop supporting Israel when they started committing a modern holocaust, let alone actually sanctioning them.
They were also perfectly happy to support Israel even if it stopped them getting elected.
If Israel nuked Iran, the Democrats would do some performative brow furrowing, call for Israel to show restraint, and send them another billion dollars
If you look at that chart, it even shows partly why. Sympathy for Palestinians didn't hit above 50% of the democratic party till 2024/2025. Which means those members elected were elected in a time of less than 50% support for Palestinians. Also sanctions as being discussed are made by Congress which has not had a Democrat majority since 2009. So there is not way they could have passed any sanctions the Republicans didn't negotiate to agree with. (Which those charts show less than 20% of Republicans having sympathy towards Palestinians at all times since 2001). So it would be career suicide for a Republican to vote for such, as their constituents don't want it.
If it were voted on again now, we would likely see 100% Republican Congress support for Israel and 40% support from Democrat Congress support, which is rediculous... But fairly accurate of how that graph would indicate.
Yeah, you're just going to keep moving goalposts rather than admit you're wrong.
You did it once and I gave you a pass, but twice is inexcusable.
I'm going to ignore you now. Goodbye.
And they didn't put sanctions on Israel. In fact, they sent them record amounts of free weapons
I know, that's the part where I said the Democrats congressmembers were slow and had been funneled money from Israel for their campaigns. When they were elected into office support for Israel was over 50% in the U.S. in 2023 it was still over 50% so it was borderline rediculous. In 2025, support for Israel is only over 50% by one of those 2 parties. As for the other guy saying I'm moving goal posts.... The post is about Israel having nukes and the media not mentioning them while discussing war with Iran, so I didn't find it off topic to say this was about Israel possibly using nukes on Iran, but oh well. We'll just have differing opinions.
Hope you have a good day
They weren't slow, though; they were very swift in supporting Israel.
Okay, so support (not even support, just sympathy) according to that chart for Palestinians didn't pass 50% until 2024. The aid you are referring too started in 2023. So mid 2024 I would have expected to see about 50% democrats saying yes, 50% saying no. If less than 50% of Democrat Congressmembers voted against sending aid to Israel, then I would consider them slow on being up to date with their constituents wants.
The issue is if 100% Republicans vote aid, and 50% Democrats vote aid, you have a supermajority (~75%) still voting for aid to Israel.
Right now I imagine we would see it tottering on a supermajority, around 66-67 percent, but that's just hypothetical as there isnt a vote at the moment.
Edit: the only thing close we may see is the bill Tim Kaine just put forward to block U.S. support to Israel pertaining to sending strikes at Iran ourselves, which is obviously different, and hopefully will split some of the Republicans votes. That said, Trump can veto just like he did when Kaine tried to block Trump from sending strikes at Iran in 2020
I'm talking about the present, where everyone knows Israel has nukes but not officially. Not some future scenario where Israel nukes Iran.
Why would you think they would need to be sanctioned for not using them? China and India both have nuclear weapons and have small skirmishes (granted not as big as this) and we don't discuss sanctioning both of them for it. I would think threatening to use or using them would be the only scenarios where sanctions would be "forced hand" for lack of a better term.
Any state that signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is obligated to sanction any other state that didn't but has nuclear weapons.
China is an authorized to have nukes in the NPT as NWS. However, neither India nor Pakistan are NPT signatories and get mixed sanctions based on who is doing it. The US has sanctions on Pakistan but overt nuclear deals with India. China has deals with Pakistan. Australia had sanctions on India until recently.
Basically international law is only enforced if politically expedient. It shouldn't surprise you that Israel certainly wouldn't actually face any actual sanctions if they declared they had nukes. But they are legitimately afraid of getting the Apartheid South Africa treatment so they don't give any ground on the issue.
Yeah I don't see why anyone would care bout that treaty if people can ignore it. Shit the U.S. /India have 1.5 billion dollar satellite being launched into space this week from India. I don't see why we would be sanctioning people and building future endeavors with them.
Except we magically give all the shits about it when it comes to Iran. All treaties are selectively applied. Welcome to the world of foreign relations.
It's an interesting satellite though if you hadn't seen anything about it yet.
https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-teams-up-with-india-to-launch-first-of-its-kind-1-5-billion-satellite
Seems like it can monitor everything down to moisture levels in soil and is supposed to pass the data for free to research companies, but of course that's what they say now, and who knows how that will play out. Otherwise building agricultural models and seeing how areas are changing over time could be really neat.
nor india and pakistan. that's the conflict I worry about more.
I saw elsewhere that Pakistan stated they would be attacking Israel back with nukes if Israel used them against Iran. Which is why I assume it's a given they won't be used and we won't have to worry about them coming into play
yeeeah, I do wonder about that. the world has seen what a few madmen can get away with for a decade here and there... doesn't seem to be stabilizing.
I think the West has already demonstrated that they're perfectly happy to just ignore obligations like that, as evidenced by them all refusing to inforce the arrest warrant against Netanyahu.
They're already ignoring it. They just don't want to admit their ignoring it.
Plus they killed the last people who were telling.
Yeah that's not happening