this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

World News

38914 readers
2322 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
quinten@lemmy.world
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
0
Benjamin Netanyahu failed Israel (www.vox.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Golda Meir lost her position due to intel failures regarding Yom Kippur war. this was a shocking failure of intelligence and basic border control. Meir lost her position only after the guns stopped firing.

A similar thing happened to Menachem Begin, who was forced into retirement after the failure of the Lebanon invasion in 1982 and the international opprobrium heaped Israel's way after it essentially winked at a massacre of Palestinian civilians by Lebanese Christian militiamen later that year. But again, Begin was only forced out after Israel had pulled back to defensive positions in Southern Lebanon and its forces were no longer engaged in heavy combat.

Bibi is so busy trying to undo Israeli liberty and stay out of jail he did botch this and fate will not treat him kindly.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Israel not so much winked at the massacre but directly supported the infrastructure for it despite knowing it was to happen. Israel wanted the massacre that killed more people in a way equally gruesome to the current Hamas terror. But of course that gave no tangible repercussions, just stern words.

I highly recommend the move "Waltz with Bashir" where the movie maker is working through his own Trauma and involvement in Israels support of the massacre as young soldier.

[–] lath@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Israelian people will eventually need to put their foot down and redress the current situation else they'll lose their nazist victim card and instead become the nazists of this century. And few countries will dare to look kindly at them then.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If they keep up the blockade of water, food and fuel to Gaza, the pictures of emaciated people - little more than skin and bones - dying of thirst and starvation, that will make everybody be shocked at the inhumanity of the perpetrators for the rest of the century, will have come from Gaza with the Israeli as the perpetrators.

Considering that the average age in Gaza is 19, unlike in the pictures that documented the disgusting acts of the Nazis which were mostly pictures of grown men, these ones will mainly have children.

[–] Syndic@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Exactly. Leningrad 2.0 certainly wouldn't look good for Israel.

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Just goes to show yet another time that fascism isn't a solution for anything.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is key:

"This does not mean most Israeli Jews became ideological right-wingers; they are not, polling suggests, fully committed to the project of expanding settlements or West Bank annexation. Mostly, they wanted Netanyahu and the right to keep them safe in a way that the left seemingly couldn’t. The prime minister, in recognition of this reality, campaigned first and foremost on security — earning the moniker, perhaps self-claimed, of “Mr. Security.”

Hamas’s attack on Saturday, a mass slaughter of Israeli civilians without precedent in Israeli history, exposed a basic contradiction in this image in the most agonizing way. Simply put, there is no way now to argue that the right-wing ideological project has delivered the security most Israelis crave."

I hope there are enough moderate Israelis out there who can push for a different approach because oppression, theft of land, and brutality isn't a way forward if the aim is to stop bloodshed from both sides.

[–] AdmiralShat@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There are plenty of moderate people in the US, but we waged a war for twenty fucking years after 9/11.

All of human history up until this day points towards a great ramping of war efforts to slaughter everyone they can get their hands on

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The actual amount of Afghanis and Iraqis killed by coalition troops and mercenaries is pretty low. The vast, vast majority of casualties of the "War on Terror" came from disruption of services and the "Civil War" stage of the Iraq invasion which saw a hundred factions fighting each other as the US+allies mostly sat around in the Green Zone. Largely because death wasn't the point, control and power was, and as long as the oil flowed the US's goals were achieved.

I'm not saying that death toll isn't ultimately the US's fault, but I am saying your point simply isn't true, the horrors of the past operated on a scale modern humans very rarely understand at any real level, and mass death simply isn't the goal that often.

Like, the Japanese invasion of China in WW2 killed twenty million people alone, and most Americans are barely aware it was a front of the war.

Even if you believe the absolute worst of the claims of the modern Uyghur genocide, also not ethnic cleansing, it's an attempt to eradicate the culture and faith that makes them troublesome to control for the CCP. Death, yet again, is not the point, control is.

Honestly this attack from Hamas is notable precisely because killing civilians seems largely to be the point, whatever justification they feel they have.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those million deaths are mostly the casualties from the civil war stage of the Iraq occupation, and were not the direct result of coalition violence.

Most, as mentioned, were casualties from sectarian violence and loss of service. Insurgent on insurgent action. Not even really Iraqis vs Iraqis tbh, given the large number of foreign volunteer fighters.

America's fault for both destabilizing the region and not enforcing order in the mess they created, but not the result of coalition troops gunning people down in the streets.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The coalition claimed to have only killed 1300 civilians. Do you really believe that?

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/05/us-coalition-admission-of-1300-civilian-deaths-in-iraq-and-syria/

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sure, if you don't count all the mercenaries they hired as coalition troops. Mercenaries you can watch, on YouTube, firing .50 cals into traffic as "warning shots."

And you ignore that "military age male" doesn't mention being visibly armed, particularly suspicious, and is defined as simply being over a male over 16.

But even if that number was a hundred times higher in reality it would still be about 10% of the total estimated casualties.

The point, as mentioned, was not to kill people, as the original comment implied.

It was to conquer and control an oil rich nation.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok? So 10% of total casualties is "pretty low?" 100,000 people is "pretty low" to you?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Compared to the atrocities of the fairly recent past? The Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, the Eastern Front, even Manifest Destiny?

Absolutely. Even assuming the worst, because unlike then mass extermination wasn't the point, which is what they claimed it was.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't realize it was a contest. What is the minimum number of people to not count as "pretty low?"

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In case you've forgotten the context of this internet argument, the original commenter implied the world was seeing unprecedented wars launched solely to kill as many people as possible.

So if they could point to a war in the last two decades that killed, idk, five million people solely to kill five million people, like the Second Congo War, that'd be a start, but it still wouldn't be at all comparable to the ethnic cleansings of the past.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think there's ever been a war solely to kill people. There are always other factors even when there's a genocide going on. So if that is your criterion, the number is zero.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fair enough, how about wars in the past thirty years where at least a secondary goal is genocide of some sort or another?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Then you run into a definition of genocide. A lot of people would consider what Israel is doing right now to be genocide.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"The actual amount of Afghanis and Iraqis killed by coalition troops and mercenaries is pretty low. "

Over a million people is not pretty low. Go smoke some more crack.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 1 year ago

Those million deaths are mostly the casualties from the civil war stage of the Iraq occupation, and were not the direct result of coalition violence.

Most, as mentioned, were casualties from sectarian violence and loss of service. Insurgent on insurgent action. Not even really Iraqis vs Iraqis tbh, given the large number of foreign volunteer fighters.

America's fault for both destabilizing the region and not enforcing order in the mess they created, but not the result of coalition troops gunning people down in the streets.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are plenty of moderate people in the US, but we waged a war for twenty fucking years after 9/11.

The Iraq war was plainly illegitimate, based on a tissue of lies. 9/11 was not a legitimate casus belli for invading Iraq, and the WMD thing was simply a hoax.

I am not so convinced about the Afghan war. 9/11 was a mass murder perpetrated by Al-Qaeda on American soil, and the Taliban were hosting and working with Al-Qaeda. However, the "nation building" efforts were never going to work.

[–] Krono@lemmy.today -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

After 9/11, the Taliban wanted to negotiate with the US in order to extradite Osama Bin Laden. Their demands were simple:

  1. Stop bombing us.
  2. Give us some evidence that Bin Laden is guilty.

Bush said 'we dont negotiate with terrists lol' and ramped up the bombing of Afghanistan, leading to the brutal invasion. Later we executed Bin Laden without a trial.

I'm not sure how you could consider any of that legitimate.

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over - The Guardian

[–] mothersprotege@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Fair enough. Bush is a war criminal, and no mistake. Still and all, Bin Laden did take responsibility for the attacks.

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 1 points 1 year ago

This is a pretty well-debunked canard. 1) The Taliban knew OBL was guilty since AQ had basically admitted it and whatever else you can say about them, they aren't stupid, and 2) their offer was to extradite him to a third neutral country --no candidate was ever named -- that would ostensibly put him on trial free of US influence.

The entire offer was absurd.

[–] PatFussy@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

How would that realistically look like without Isreal waging war with almost the entire Middle East?

The 'middle ground' for Hamas is "kill all the jews in their land and destroy the Israeli state".

Edit: how about instead of merely downvoting you guys respond with a thought of a potential solution that doesnt end with Israel getting completely butt fucked. This whole invasion was just an exercise for people brainstorm on how to shit on Israel regardless of the outcome.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

You claim Israel to wage war against almost thr entire middle east. That is just ludicrious. Where are the Syrian, Jordanian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Egyptian, Saudi, Quatari, Kuwaiti, Omari, Jemeni, Lybian, Algerian, Tunisian, Moroccan, Sudanese and Iranian forces?

The best that can be claimed is Israel being at war with Hamas now and having had skirmishes with Hezbollah and Iran, albeit these were entirely Israeli attacks in Iran.

[–] fkn@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The reality of the current situation is that Palestine is probably going to cease to exist... And you are asking about a solution where Israel doesn't cease to exist?

I'm confused.

[–] PatFussy@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah that is just naive. Israel has no interest in destroying palestine... but palestine does have interest in destroying Isreal. My real shit take here is that the world would be better off without the PLO regardless.

[–] Arbic@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah that is just naive. Israel has no interest in destroying palestine

What was that again about killing all those animals. And blockading of water, food and energy ?

[–] PatFussy@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sometimes you have to pluck out the weeds am i right chat? If you dont play nice, you dont get to eat. That was a joke btw.

I havent read too much into how israel has used overaeching power like that but if you have any non biased sources id love to see.