• YTG123@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 hours ago

    American media being more pro-Israel than mainstream Israeli media is continuously baffling

  • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I was listening to German news this morning, and you could hear the anchor drooling when they were speaking about Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. Like, holy fuck, can we stop pretending all of this is normal and okay?

        • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          58 minutes ago

          You have basically two sites. One loves the fact that Arabs and Jews kill each other and want the war to continue. They support ending German aid to Palestine and so forth. The other wants to end US warmongering in the region, caused by US support of Islamic terrorist in attacking Israel. Yes I did not mix that up, the US according to some in the AFD Biden supports Hamas.

    • sandbox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 minutes ago

      imo all religions suck, but I wouldn’t call any of them cancer, that’s very dehumanising. one of the reasons I dislike islam is because it dehumanises people. saying shit like “islam is cancer” is just bad as calling for the death of infidels

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    6 hours ago

    im sorry, war is mutually consensual in all cases?

    I know a lot of war is generally formalized, but that’s mostly due to legislation and governmental reasons, not international relations. Or at least that’s my understanding of it.

    • el_abuelo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      About as consensual as defending yourself from someone punching you in the face.

      Sure, you could let them keep punching you in the face…or you could try and stop them.

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Can you clarify your question? The point here is that this is clearly an invasion by any definition.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        6 hours ago

        yeah, invasions are normal under war. That’s how they work.

        I guess i’m mostly just confused why we care about the clarification here, 90% of war is getting a one up on your enemy, either via readiness, attrition, or technological advantage.

        • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          The point here is that Israel is invading, but the Times was too compromised to call it an invasion. Usually when someone says “sends troops” to another country it’s to help after an earthquake or flood or fire or something. When someone invades with troops it’s called an invasion. The Times has a long history of unreasonably downplaying the violent actions of the Israeli government specifically, while using plain straightforward language in other conflicts, which demonstrates bias.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            invasion colloquially would be considered a more official declaration of war, idk if israel has acknowledged this, and if lebanon hasn’t acknowledged this at all themselves, than i feel like calling it a literal invasion is probably a little bit presumptuous here.

            Is the headline factually wrong?

            Usually when someone says “sends troops” to another country it’s to help after an earthquake or flood or fire or something.

            idk about this one chief, isn’t it usually “sends aid” or “send aid” do you have any examples of this?

            like to be clear here, you’re claiming that the NYT title is biased, but then proposing an equally biased term to replace it. I would rather the title just be neutral. The headlines are useless anyway.

            edit: removed a weird bit.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    23 hours ago

    The article about the invasion on Poland wasn’t any better.
    The NYT published the proclamation of Hitler verbatim without criticizing it, and reported the German lie that Poland attacked first as fact.

    Berlin, Friday, Sept. 1–Charging that Germany had been attacked, Chancellor Hitler at 5:11 o’clock this morning issued a proclamation to the army declaring that from now on force will be met with force and calling on the armed forces “to fulfill their duty to the end.”

    The text of the proclamation reads:
    *"To the defense forces:
    The Polish nation refused my efforts for a peaceful regulation of neighborly relations; instead it has appealed to weapons. Germans in Poland are persecuted with a bloody terror and are driven from their homes. The series of border violations, which are unbearable to a great power, prove that the Poles no longer are willing to respect the German frontier. In order to put an end to this frantic activity no other means is left to me now than to meet force with force. German defense forces will carry on the battle for the honor of the living rights of the re- awakened German people with firm determination. I expect every German soldier, in view of the great tradition of eternal German soldiery, to do his duty until the end. Remember always in all situations you are the representatives of National Socialist Greater Germany! Long live our people and our Reich!

    Berlin, Sept. 1, 1939. Adolf Hitler"*

    The commander-in-chief of the air force issued a decree effective immediately prohibiting the passage of any airplanes over German territory excepting those of the Reich air force or the government. This morning the naval authorities ordered all German mercantile ships in the Baltic Sea not to run to Danzig or Polish ports. Anti-air raid defenses were mobilized throughout the country early this morning. A formal declaration of war against Poland had not yet been declared up to 8 o’clock [3 A.M. New York time] this morning and the question of whether the two countries are in a state of active belligerency is still open.

    Reichstag Will Meet Today Foreign correspondents at an official conference at the Reich Press Ministry at 8:30 o’clock [3:30 A.M. New York time] were told that they would receive every opportunity to facilitate the transmission of dispatches. Wireless stations have been instructed to speed up communications and the Ministry is installing additional batteries of telephones. The Reichstag has been summoned to meet at 10 o’clock [5 A.M. New York time] to receive a more formal declaration from Herr Hitler. The Hitler army order is interpreted as providing, for the time being, armed defense of the German frontiers against aggression. The action is also suspected of forcing international diplomatic action. The Germans announced that foreigners remain in Polish territory at their own risk. Flying over Polish territory as well as the maritime areas is forbidden by the German authorities and any violators will be shot down. When Herr Hitler made his announcement Berlin’s streets were still deserted except for the conventional early traffic, and there were no outward signs that the nation was finding itself in the first stages of war. The government area was completely deserted, and the two guards doing sentry duty in front of the Chancellery remained their usual mute symbol of authority. It was only when official placards containing the orders to the populace began to appear on the billboards that early workers became aware of the situation.

    Border Clashes Increase Berlin, Friday, Sept. 1–An increasing number of border incidents involving shooting and mutual Polish-German casualties are reported by the German press and radio. The most serious is reported from Gleiwitz, a German city on the line where the southwestern portion of Poland meets the Reich. At 8 P.M., according to the semi-official news agency, a group of Polish insurrectionists forced an entrance into the Gleiwitz radio station, overpowering the watchmen and beating and generally mishandling the attendants. The Gleiwitz station was relaying a Breslau station’s program, which was broken off by the Poles. They proceeded to broadcast a prepared proclamation, partly in Polish and partly in German, announcing themselves as “the Polish Volunteer Corps of Upper Silesia speaking from the Polish station in Gleiwitz.” The city, they alleged, was in Polish hands. Gleiwitz’s surprised radio listeners notified the police, who halted the broadcast and exchanged fire with the insurrectionists, killing one and capturing the rest. The police are said to have discovered that the attackers were assisted by regular Polish troops. The Gleiwitz incident is alleged here to have been the signal “for a general attack by Polish franctireurs on German territory.” Two other points–Pitsachen, near Kreuzburg, and Hochlinden, northeast of Ratibor, both in the same vicinity as Gleiwitz, were the scenes of violations of the German boundary, it is claimed, with fighting at both places still under way.

    https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0901.html

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Germans in Poland are persecuted with a bloody terror and are driven from their homes. The series of border violations, which are unbearable to a great power, prove that the Poles no longer are willing to respect the German frontier.

      It’s so crazy to see most of the israeli propaganda literally being straight out of the Nazi playbook.

        • AccountMaker@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 minutes ago

          Exactly my thoughts. You could copy that speech from the beginning, replace every instance of Germany/Germans with Russia/Russians, replace Poland with Ukraine, and you’ll have milions of people nodding as saying: “Yes, that makes sense, defend Russia!”

  • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Let’s take a complex situation, make it worse, set it on fire, then spray the fire with gasoline from a fire hose. What’s the worst that could happen?

  • greencactus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Well, it is obviously a special military operation to denazify and demilitarise the terrorist militia of other country, because it threatens peace and security. /s

    Seriously, isn’t this like called a war declaration or something? If you bomb another country and move in troops and kill civilians?

    • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      There wasn’t much declarations of war since ww2. Even the US was only technically at war when Panama declared war on them after the US invaded them. Ukraine isn’t technically at war with Russia, they actually do business together transferring gas to Europe. The world is strange.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            Yeah well there’s no accounting for them being too dumb to remember they passed the War Powers Act specifically to prevent the President from conducting war without a declaration. And that they specifically voted for the AUMFs as designated by the War Powers Act.

            It’s literally the vehicle by which they exercise that constitutional power. Of course they would then have to admit they declared official war on the concept of terrorism.

            The first paragraph makes that pretty clear, but they added two more just to make it crystal clear.

            It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

            Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

            The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

            Click here for the actual text of the law.

            Edit - I just went ahead and added them. I am so tired of this purely semantic argument meant to make the US look worse than it is.

    • AnyProgressIsGood@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      41
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Iean ya failed history of you think these things are even remotely similar

      Hezbollah has been launching rockets daily. Hardly the same as a false flag fire

    • swordfish@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      65
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah because Poland was launching missiles on German villages behind the border for a full year. Duh.

      People hating IL so much that they just leave entire parts of the conflict out and then feel good about “doing the eight thing” are a part of the problem.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          holy shit this entire fucking thread is brain dead dude.

          Im pretty sure the V2 literally didn’t exist before they invaded poland. I’m 95% sure that’s the joke here.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Uh… Israel was and still is committing genocide. And before that it was Apartheid and slower genocide. Setting aside the idea of refugees and how Lebanon is next after Gaza and the West Bank, every country in the world has a duty under international law to stop genocide and other crimes against humanity. The fact that Israel is committing genocide is, in and of itself, is a casus belli. This is the exact same thing the Allies get praised for in WWII. Also you’re phrasing it like Israel wasn’t responding each of these rockets with a lot more rockets, but even if we ignore all that: Israel made the conscious decision to escalate the conflict with Hezbollah with the pager attack and subsequent airstrikes.

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          19 hours ago

          The fact that Israel is committing genocide is, in and of itself, is a casus belli. This is the exact same thing the Allies get praised for in WWII.

          No, unfortunately not really. The extent of the Holocaust was not uncovered until the Allies moved into Germany and took the concentration camps. Britain was at war due to their guarantee of Polish sovereignty, the US was at war due to Pearl Harbor, and Germany declaring war on them a few days later. Nobody went into WW2 to stop a genocide. China and the USSR were at war due to being invaded.

          While some credit is given to stopping the Holocaust, certainly, that was largely a side effect of simply winning WW2.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            China and the USSR were at war due to being invaded.

            the chinese leg of the conflict is particularly goofy.

            China had two, or three parties at one point, all fighting for control over the country. There was the communist party (backed by the soviets) There was the democratic party (backed by the US) and then there was also japan doing it’s thing trying to take over china as well.

            Prior to this there was the russo japanese war, which was an equally big shitpost, the russians having been fucking broiled by the japanese over it, though a different story.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            While some credit is given to stopping the Holocaust, certainly, that was largely a side effect of simply winning WW2.

            Yeah, I know. My phrasing was bad. I meant they’re being praised for fighting Germany and stopping thr Holocaust, not that they entered WWII to stop the Holocaust. I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of criticizing a country trying to stop genocide happening close to it.

            • Serinus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Which one? Clearly anything Hamas does is justified retaliation, so Israel is retaliating enough just there won’t be significant retaliation.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 hours ago

                Which one? Clearly anything Hamas does is justified retaliation

                im pretty sure internationally recognized terrorism isn’t considered to be justified or retaliation, but it’s the middle east, so that’s something that sort of just, happens sometimes. That would probably explain why israel is reacting so violently.

              • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 hours ago

                Clearly anything Hamas does is justified retaliation

                No? They definitely weren’t justified in raping and killing civilians in October 7th. However, as an oppressed and occupied people, they have a permanent casus belli against Israel until the latter starts taking serious steps towards peace, so the act of attacking Israel on October 7th (remember that 66% of the dead were military or security targets; they didn’t just kill some civilians and leave) itself is a legitimate act of resistance.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            14 hours ago

            I guess we shouldn’t have intervened in the whole Yugoslavia thing then, I mean, clearly we have to wait until like 40% of the ethnic minority is dead!

                • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  i mean, up to 10% is quite a bit. That’s still 90% of the population existing though, so i’m not sure that’s to the levels of genocide, as defined by uh, genocide. Which would be ethnic cleansing.

                  If we’re going by existing figures, that’s like what, 2.5% of the population. I feel like famines have probably killed more people, and that war has most definitely contributed more deaths to this as well.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Uh… Did you not hear of that one Lancet study about how it’s likely for every documented death there are 5 undocumented deaths? Do you understand how the Gazan healthcare system has already collapsed and they’re unable to count the dead? Even just taking the current 41k and multiplying them by 5 gives 205 thousand, or more than 10% of Gaza’s population. All of Gaza is in famine, with North Gaza faring the worst, and Israel still refuses to let aid in. How do you call 10% of the population (already more than all Hamas members) dying anything other than a genocide?

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              6 hours ago

              How do you call 10% of the population (already more than all Hamas members) dying anything other than a genocide?

              uh, simple. The definition of genocide as defined in the dictionary is an “ethnic cleansing” and if we assume this to be the “correct” definition, for the sake of argumentative purpose here.

              It must follow, as defined that if the conflict were to stop, that israel would stop killing Palestinians. Since this has been going on for like 80 years or something, it’s hard to say, but i think it’s probably fair to say that israel would stop killing people if they came to a peace agreement.

              However, this changes a little bit if we pull into the definition of genocide as defined by the UN or something, which is a lot more broad, likely due to legal deliberation, this is extremely common. Now i don’t know of any ruling from the ICC the ICJ, or the UN that classifies this as a “genocide” though i know the ICJ has said that this could very well be genocide. And that the ICC has pushed a warrant containing multiple war crimes for netanyahu.

              Though to be fair, i haven’t read into anything the UN has said on this conflict specifically, so i could be mistaken there just due to sheer ignorance lol.

              I know numerous “countries” have claimed as such, but i believe that very few have specifically stated as such, there has been a lot of public outcry, and im sure a number of politicians against this. But to my knowledge, only south africa has stated that this “is a genocide” however accurate that quote is, though to be fair again, i don’t know much about this one either.

              • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                I mean take a look at South Africa’s case. They have evidence of genocidal acts (causing significant harm to an ethnic group) and genocidal intent (the countless quotes from high ranking Israeli officials calling for genocide). It’s genocide; it’s just that the case is taking a while.

                • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  yeah, and if we take a look at south africas case, it’s not “genocide” it appears that it has reasonable extent to be genocide. Which are two different things.

                  You’re doing guilty until proven innocent here, which, is weird. Even weirder, when i see people calling for the literal denazification of israel.

                  As far as the two requirements go here, those are two very broad, and not very specific statements, genocidal acts is incredibly broad, so broad in fact that the vast majority of things that would apply, are probably not genocide. Intent is a lot clearer, but then you also have to consider military and governmental intent, rather than just personal statements. Civil intent is also a big problem here as well. I’m not convinced that the majority of israel literally wants to ethnically cleanse palestinians. Or that the governmental figures do to begin with, albeit they aren’t doing themselves a favor when they say super sus shit like that either.

                  Though this is also the middle east, and from my knowledge, this kind of death toll and fighting is not unusual? They tend to have very aggressive opinions on this stuff for some reason.

                  so in summary here, you’ve basically said, well, it sort of looks like a duck, and the sound it makes is vaugely similar to a duck, so this weird silhouette behind the sheet here must be a duck, there is no possible alternative in this situation.

                  Also. wouldn’t it follow, that if the evidence were SO telling in this case, that this legal case would probably be over a little bit quicker than it seems to be taking right now? It’s weird that we’re even deliberating on the verdict before it’s happened, and it’s even weirder that you seem to be 100% confident about it, even though im assuming you have basically the same knowledge level that i do on it.

                  Maybe i’m wrong, and you’ve written a PHD dissertation on conflict in the middle east, and have extensively studied israel and it’s history, but i’m going to go out on a limb here and say since you’re yelling at me on lemmy, you probably haven’t.

                  Notice how im not 100% confident on the statements i make? Even though i’d be pretty willing to bet money on this, i’m still not going to authoritatively state it either. It’s not really that hard to just, not be so aggressive about something this vile.

      • aasatru@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I agree completely that Hezbollah makes up a huge problem, and after their involvement in Syria there’s not a hint of legitimacy left in the organization if there ever was any.

        But one would do well that to remember their origins: They are what’s left of the resistance from the last time Israel invaded Lebanon. So that’s what a great fucking success that was.

        And Hezbollah are not Lebanon. They control territory, and they need to be fought, but this in not how one fights terrorist organizations. This is how you create terrorist organizations. Which is exactly what Israel did the last time they invaded.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        24 hours ago

        Just like how israel bombed Gaza for 20 years straight and then Hamas a performed a limited ground operation.

        • aasatru@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          24 hours ago

          I’m sorry, but “limited ground operation” is the same type of shadowy bullshit language as calling the genocide in Gaza a “strategic operation”.

          • Anas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            21 hours ago

            I admit, I thought I was in a different thread.

            Lebanese have the right to defend themselves, and Palestinians.

            • kofe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              15 hours ago

              The iron dome is defense. Actively bombing outside of ones borders, in my opinion, is fucked up, no matter what “side.” It’s like all these country’s leaders are acting off PTSD responses and escalating more and more, no one attempting to deescalate. Idk what the answer is, honestly.

              My ridiculous attempt to make light of the situation is to childishly wish Mr. Rogers were still alive to help us all get through this.

              • orrk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                14 hours ago

                you know, bomber Harris famously said: “The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation.”

                but to the IDF? this is no mere delusion, they do have a guarantee that they won’t be bombed, because they have the iron dome, they can do what they want.

                so I’ll pass on the notion that iron dome being “defensive” somehow stops its existence from emboldening the vile actions of the literal terrorist Regime that is the current Israeli government (yes, several top ministers of the Israeli government are internationally wanted terrorists, only taken off said lists because they became part of an official government)

                • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 hours ago

                  but to the IDF? this is no mere delusion, they do have a guarantee that they won’t be bombed, because they have the iron dome, they can do what they want.

                  the iron dome is literally not a guarantee that you can’t be bombed, i think the iron dome has had a 90% effectiveness thus far, but don’t quote me on it.

                  And besides, if you destroy the anti air, like we did in operation sandstorm, you can’t exactly stop it.

                  Or better yet, pull a hopeless diamond and simply fly stealth bombers over. (assuming that works of course)

                  if you want to argue that they don’t have these capabilities, sure, that’s literally how asymmetrical warfare works though.

                • kofe@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  The iron dome didn’t protect them on October 7th. It didn’t protect them completely today. I have friends that grew up there with the reality of seeking out bomb shelters constantly. Without, they’d be glassed by now. I agree they probably feel emboldened, but not without good reason. Should we compare surrounding regimes on the amount of internationally recognized terrorists in positions of dictatorship? At least Israeli citizens have some level of recourse if they’re dissatisfied. I think all individuals deserve the same level of self determination, along with Palestinians, Iranians, etc.

                  I know there’s nuance in how Israel and the US have played roles actively discouraging or even overthrowing democratic regimes, but I want to be careful not to take accountability away from each individual that has contributed to the suffering of innocent people. Abuse always has precursors.

              • Anas@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                13 hours ago

                No, actually, occupiers have no right to defend themselves.

                • kofe@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  I agree on the premise that occupation is not a defensive strategy. The degree to how fucked up it is in comparison to actively bombing depends. The food, water, and informative (shutting down access to Internet) blockades are horrific, on par with bombing imo. The casualties in Gaza are inexcusable.

                  Trust me, we have common grounds of disgust here. I don’t believe we can expect to see a path toward peace if we can’t demonstrate healthy conflict management ourselves, though. Israel has been established and deserves self determination without constant threat of external anhilitation as much as any of their neighboring countries. Palestine needs to be formally recognized, as well.

  • Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I’m really sick of hearing Americans of all people, and Westerners in general trying to moralize about invasions and war.

  • teslasaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    71
    ·
    1 day ago

    Funny. I don’t remember Poland firing ballistic missiles into Germany before the invasion.

    But this is definitely the same thing as Germany invading Poland /s

    • aasatru@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t think anyone is making the point that it’s literally the exact same thing.

      But what we’re witnessing is that Israel can bomb a civilian population to rubble for months and months, and all the intensional community can stutter out is that they “have a right to defend themselves”.

      Now they are bombing a foreign capital and sending in ground troops to their neighbouring country to fight off a militia that they themselves are responsible for creating by invading in the past, and we know exactly what the chorus will be. Right to defend themselves.

      We will see our Lebanese friends and their families murdered, all for Israel’s right to defend themselves.

      In Germany, the line was that they would stop at Poland. People make up different excuses for different atrocities.

      I think a lot of people are rightfully fucking tired of excuses, and that’s the point. Not that it’s literally the same thing.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        man some of these comments are so hard to understand.

        You can’t fight against a militia that you created? So you can’t do war at all now? Russia can’t invade countries like Switzerland and Finland due to them having a lot of military presence?

        The US can’t fight russia if they decide to invade the US since the US arguably had some influence over the death of the USSR being a superpower at the time of the coldwar.

        Who cares if they in part created that millitia, it should only matter if one side wants to aggress the otherside, otherwise all bets are off. If both sides want to sit there and engage in military posturing, they’re free to do so, if one wants to aggress the other, they’re free to do so.

        I see people saying that lebanon, and palestine are allowed to defend themselves, and i don’t think anybody disagrees, but it implies that you either think neither of these countries have a capable military force, or that israel is somehow not allowed to defend itself? Which either means you think israel is the aggressor in every instance here, all the way back to the founding of israel, which seems like an odd position to hold because that would be theoretically easy to fact check. Or that israel shouldn’t do anything in response to getting attacked because they have a bigger stronger military or something?

        can you fill me in on what im missing here?

        • aasatru@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          They created this militia by invading and mobilising resistance. Now they are doing the exact same thing. The only way I can see them exterminating Hezbolla this way is if they extend their genocide to Lebanon, and are successful at it. If not, all they achieve is to fill the next generations with hate just as they have done in the past.

          If Israel backed off, recognized Palestine and Palestinian territory, ended illegal settlements and began complying with international law, sent Netanyahu to the Hague, apologized, recognized the equal human rights of Arabs, and promised to help rebuild infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank and to help Palestine gain safety of water and electricity independent of Israel, and then committed to this agenda, they would achieve peace in a heartbeat.

          But that’s unreasonable, right? But what exactly about it is unreasonable? Complying with international law? Recognizing Arabs as humans?

          This would be the only way Israel could, in fact, defend itself. In fact, simply stopping the genocide would probably go a long way. But that’s still unthinkable for Netanyahu.

          This notion of defence by bombing everyone around you is not sustainable when you need to defend yourself because everyone around you hates you. This is not the wars of the 19th century. Netanyahu is doing absolutely nothing to make Israel safer.

          And worse still, he knows that. He never wanted to make Israel safe. Removing people is the point, no matter the cost. His project is to clean the land of Arabs. No matter the cost.

      • teslasaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Yes they are. Look at the post. They are quite literally (in the words true meaning) making that point.

        • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          15 hours ago

          The person who first said “Germany has the right to defend themselves” was making a fairly nuanced point. That is, you can be the aggressor and still of course retain the right to defend yourself. Claiming “X has the right to defend itself!” is a deflective statement meant to justify disproportionate violence as we’ve seen in Gaza and now the West Bank.

      • newDayRocks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Hezbolla is not Lebanon or its government. It’s not a declaration of war if the country (its official government) isn’t objecting to the entry

        • aasatru@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          That’s an interesting take. I think you should ideally be invited before your military march into a foreign country and start bombing in order to claim it’s not an invasion. It’s not one of those things you can assume you have permission to do until the country you’re invading starts fighting back.

          Lebanon is not Hezbolla. But the bombs are falling in Lebanon, and it is Lebanese civilians that are being killed and displaced. They are invading Lebanon,.

          That Lebanon hardly has a government to speak of and is doing awfully already does not mean you can just rightfully bomb it. What the fuck.

          • newDayRocks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Lebanon has a government and an army that is not Hezbollah. They do not want Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon either. Which is why you do not hear the Lebanese government denouncing or opposing Israel’s actions. You don’t see them going to the UN or the US telling them to stop Israel.

            Just because you don’t approve of their government and response doesn’t mean you can just dismiss it.

      • Microw@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        It’s not the quite same thing. Ukraine immediately shouted “Russia is invading us and trying to push through to Kiev!” Both the lebanese caretaker government and Hezbollah are saying that there is no permanent Israeli army presence on Lebanese ground. Israel claims to have sent soldiers into Lebanon, but no one on the Lebanese side is confirming that.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          This is about Ukraine invading Kursk, not the one where Russia invaded Ukraine. I picked this one specifically because Ukraine is also a US client state that is somehow treated differently when it comes to how it’s reported on and what they’re allowed to do with military aid.

          • Microw@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            36 minutes ago

            Oh my bad, I misread it. My point that Lebanon says nothing major is going on on the ground still stands though.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            and what they’re allowed to do with military aid.

            to be clear, israel receives US military aid as well.

            That’s probably why palestine isn’t as much of a concern. They’re just two different conflicts here. We’ve been a pseudo ally with ukraine since the dissolution of the USSR, and so has europe more broadly, we all have stuff to lose there.

            The same is also probably true for israel, though to different extents, and likely very different reasons. I couldn’t tell you much about it though.

            if you look at it from this perspective, it’s perfectly and wholly consistent.

            • Microw@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              35 minutes ago

              That’s a very condensed version of Ukrainian history since 1990 lol

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          they’re not white though, they’re Slavic/Ukrainian.

          in fact, this is why we refer to that part of europe as “eastern europe” even though, there’s no significant distinction.

      • teslasaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Then that would have been a better comparison, wouldnt it? But they are comparing it to the NAZIS!

        I don’t have the energy to explain why this is wrong on every single kneejerk post on this site. But safe to say it’s not applicable with even the slightest thought of the subjects in question.

        Jews where kicked out of their homeland by force, by both Christians and Muslims. Muslims hated jews a long time before this conflict arose. Much like the nazis did, but in their case its a religious schism more than a racial one.

        For all the love and understanding that the Muslim community spouts, they wont even accept palestinians as refugees. A Palestinian refugee spoke about their treatment by both hamas and Egypt on Swedish national news saying “we have never been as poorly treated as we were by the Egyptian authorities”

        • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          That’s not the reality of the origins of Zionism, you are conflating Zionism with Judaism, which are 2 very different things. Christian nations have been far more antisemitic historically than Muslim nations. Adi Callai, an Israeli, does a great analysis of how Antisemitism has been weaponized (see 29:01) by Zionism during its history.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Islam

          Origins of Zionism

          Zionism is a settler colonialism project that was able to really start with the support of British Imperialism. Zionism as a political movement started with Theodore Herzl in the 1880s as a ‘modern’ way to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ of Europe.

          Since at least the 1860’s, Europe was increasingly antisemitic and hostile to Jewish people. Zionism was explicitly a Setter Colonialist movement and the native Palestinians were not considered People but Savages by the Europeans. While Zionist Colonization began before it, the Balfor Declaration is when Britain gave it’s backing of the movement in order to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ while also creating a Colony in the newly conquered Middle East after WWI in order to exhibit military force in the region and extract natural resources.

          That’s when Zionist immigration started to pick up, out of necessity for most as Europe became more hostile and antisemitic. That continued into and during WWII, European countries and even the US refused to expand immigration quotas for Jewish people seeking asylum. The idea that the creation of Israel is a reparation for Jewish people is an after-the-fact justification. While most Jewish immigrants had no choice and just wanted a place to live in peace, it was the Zionist Leadership that developed and implemented the forced transfer, ethnic cleansing, of the native population, Palestinians. Without any Occupation, Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, there would not be any Palestinian resistance to it.

          Herzl himself explicitly considered Zionism a Settler Colonialist project, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough Palestinian people need to be ‘Transferred’ to have a demographic majority that is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.

          Quote

          Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers.

          The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat.

          An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.

          Settlements, Occupation, and Apartheid

          Israel justifies the settlements and military bases in the West Bank in the name of Security. However, the reality of the settlements on-the-ground has been the cause of violent resistance and a significant obstacle to peace, as it has been for decades.

          This type of settlement, where the native population gets ‘Transferred’ to make room for the settlers, is a long standing practice.

          The mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948:

          Further, declassified Israeli documents show that the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were deliberately planned before being executed in 1967:

          While the peace process was exploited to continue de-facto annexation of the West Bank via Settlements

          The settlements are maintained through a violent apartheid that routinely employs violence towards Palestinians and denies human rights like water access, civil rights, etc. This kind of control gives rise to violent resistance to the Apartheid occupation, jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians.

          State violence – official and otherwise – is part and parcel of Israel’s apartheid regime, which aims to create a Jewish-only space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The regime treats land as a resource designed to serve the Jewish public, and accordingly uses it almost exclusively to develop and expand existing Jewish residential communities and to build new ones. At the same time, the regime fragments Palestinian space, dispossesses Palestinians of their land and relegates them to living in small, over-populated enclaves.

          The apartheid regime is based on organized, systemic violence against Palestinians, which is carried out by numerous agents: the government, the military, the Civil Administration, the Supreme Court, the Israel Police, the Israel Security Agency, the Israel Prison Service, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and others. Settlers are another item on this list, and the state incorporates their violence into its own official acts of violence. Settler violence sometimes precedes instances of official violence by Israeli authorities, and at other times is incorporated into them. Like state violence, settler violence is organized, institutionalized, well-equipped and implemented in order to achieve a defined strategic goal.

          Visualizing the Ethnic Cleansing

          Good Books on the History
    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      23 hours ago

      You’re right. In this analogy Germany entered Poland 40 years ago and there was no WWII to make them cut out their bullshit.

    • Eheran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      1 day ago

      Just got to love that you get downvoted for staying stating something THIS obvious. People think these rockets are toys or outright forget they exist.

      • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        24 hours ago

        It almost makes you wonder why they would send rockets into the illegally occupied West Bank.

        Oh well, I’m sure its just because they’re racist against Jewish people and the event happened in a vaccume.

        • Eheran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Yes, that is what they are. Absolutely. They wish all the Jews were dead. That is what they learn from childhood on. Hamas even had that in their constitution(!) until recently.

          That does not mean that things happen in a vacuum, it is a hate spiral that neither side alone can stop and working together is something both sides do not want. What a terrible situation.

          • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            22 hours ago

            TIL that if you hate your neighbors for killing and stealing the land of your compatriots, you’re racist. As I allude to, they have a very legitimate reason to hate Israel but it gets dismissed as just being racist against all Jews, without a hint of irony.

            They can’t work together because one side wants to break international law and the other side tries to resist them. They would be happy to work together. Its just that you won’t get hamas or hezbollah working with Israel on how to illegally steal and colonise land from their neighbours. That would be silly.

          • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            15 hours ago

            I mean, if you lived somewhere, and an entire demographic of people moved in, claimed the land as the birthright of their religion, and started murdering your family, you might develop some ideas about what kind of people belong to that religion. Zionism is an insidious cancer.