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
Perhaps it was but there was some movement. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Aliyah - but I think you alluded to this earlier when you mentioned what Russia and such did back in 1882.
From what I can tell, this is correct. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine#Ottoman_period
Countries - or even provinces - usually have well defined borders, so up to Ottoman control it wasn't a single entity but a poorly defined grouping.
I guess one could make the case for it after the British Mandate of Palestine, but of course it still wasn't an independent country when the British were running things.
I don't know too much about this but it sounds plausible.
Well, Oct 7 really was a major setback. I would admit that Netanyahu seems like the last person to allow for Palestine or a two state solution, like, ever. But he was about to be handed a major setback in gov't control back in Sept and Oct 2023 which one could kinda see as maybe paving the way for a new gov't to take control, one more likely to offer a new olive branch to the Palestinians - until Oct 7 happened and everyone agreed to coalition and stand behind Netanyahu.
Right, that movement was not to Palestine however. Those people would have been moving to Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria because there was no country named Palestine.
For it not to be plausible would mean from 1850 to now every woman would had to have 15+ kids and their kids have 5+ kids with 0 mortalities.
You should look into Hamas/Gaza govt support for a two state solution for context on netanyahu. They do not support and they will not surrender or recognize Israel.
As well netanyahu has voiced his vision for a two state solution.
It's a fair take given that time and time again Gaza advances to destroy Israel.
Well, to be fair some folks might have moved in a time when there was a territory that went by the name of the British Mandate of Palestine. Anyways, semantics, mostly agreed.
I would agree on the bit regarding Hamas ... but I think one shouldn't conflate all Gazans and their beliefs with just Hamas. Remember that Hamas took power only after overthrowing a unity government that was under the Palestinian Authority (which does still support a two state solution).
Regarding Netanyahu, the article from CNN you cite kinda shows the problem. Netanyahu is not in favor of Palestinian sovereignty.
In fact, CNN makes it very clear,
That said, the security concerns regarding Israel are indeed valid. I'm not sure what the right answer to that would be... perhaps in the beginning we'd need to have peacekeepers? But perhaps we could find a neutral islamic country (who? Perhaps Malaysia?) to fit that role. With fellow followers of Islam keeping the peace and IDF having withdrawn, perhaps then Israel can feel secure while a new Palestine is built?
Why would he have complete supporte for their sovereignty given what his country has seen at their hand. The right answer to this is why do they need a military. They are surrounded by Muslim brothers. I'm sure israel would offer their protection as well as allies near them. There are various countries today without a military force.
The problem is. Hamas wants nothing to do with that. They don't want a two state solution unless they keep their terror military and weapons. In fact they won't accept or recognize Israel at all. Then your problem is you blame their denial for a two state solution on Netanyahu. Or you expect him to give the terrorists sovereignty anyways.
Agree this is a problem. They caused Oct 7 and they need to be stopped.
The innocent Gazans unaffiliated with Hamas, and the PA and the folks living in the West Bank deserve to have their country and their rights respected, but none of that should read as saying Hamas should stay in power, or even be allowed to exist at all.
This is a misreading of my argument. Hamas != State of Palestine
Well, not to Hamas!
Again, not to Hamas! For the past twenty years the PA has kept peace with Israel - this is the model to follow.
Yeah... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_proxy_conflict
Let's say for the sake of argument that magical wizards come in and fix everything. We end up with two states tied together by peace, with the violence behind them. (Model for this being the Troubles in Northern Ireland.) Or even a single Israel state with peace - for the sake of this argument, this detail doesn't matter.
It's a volatile area with lots of conflict between different countries, even if one excludes Hamas and related insurgents. Any country in that area would need a military just to defend its own existence.
The countries that don't have any military forces - I imagine none of them are in this kind of situation.
In theory that could work. The problem in practice is that IDF has lost a lot of good will, and perhaps might be seen as occupiers instead of peacekeepers from a friendly allied country. Hence my suggestion for Malaysia to step in - Islamic troops from a far away neutral country - might be better perceived.
Heck, a lot of goodwill might be earned just by being fresh and new. Now that may not be entirely fair to the IDF, but politics is rarely fair.