“80% of the world is against Israel, which is backed by my country, but among them there are countries that are bad and oppose my country for some reason, so I’ll support what my country is backing instead”
Israel is much more successful in massacring people than any of the countries you could think of. And please, don’t talk shit about other countries when you aren’t ready to fight against your country’s ruling class. That never ended well. This is literally the reason some Russian “communists” support the war.
Support for Hamas does imply support for Palestine.
However, what the original commenter said is that supporting Palestine doesn’t imply supporting Hamas, which is true, it just implies an eclectic worldview in which you support a people against a genocide, but not their only means for resisting said genocide, and ignore facts (for example, by reading the 1988 Hamas charter, which is heavily cited by Western media, instead of the 2017 Hamas charter, which is much harder to find because it’s inconvenient for the West)
Hamas has also stated quite recently their goal is the elimination of Israel by repeated terrorist attacks against civilians. So no, one should not support Hamas.
First, elimination of Israel is a good thing. Second, please show me the source.
Indeed, “terrorist attacks” have widely been performed by Palestinians and Palestinian liberation groups. Some were aimless, as they were just the spontaneous expression of the hatred of Palestinians towards Zionists. Some were quite purposeful (and it’s not just Palestinians doing that, there were plenty of cases of e.g. terrorist attacks of Ukraine on many people in Russia, the most recent one I remember killed a former Ukraine deputy who defected to Russia, and the blowing up of the Crimea bridge may well be considered one) - with the purpose being anything from assassinations (like the assassination of the minister of tourism by PFLP, and I hope you won’t claim Israel’s government is innocent and shouldn’t be targeted), to raising money, to political demands (the Japanese Red Army Faction hijacked some planes for ransom or to make the Japanese government release prisoners, or to make a point by flying one to DPRK), to perhaps the most objectionable purpose - intimidating Israelis to show that this isn’t “their” land.
“Terrorist attacks” shouldn’t be equated with each other - they should be looked at in the context of who’s leading them, what’s their purpose and means. If you reject “terrorist attacks”, you’re often rejecting the only means of partisan combat for heavily overwhelmed forces. Of course indiscriminate attacks on civilians are bad (though if civilians start shooting at you, you’re forced to fight anyway), but, depending on the organization leading them, most terrorist attacks aren’t that. There’s of course also the wider problem that terrorist attacks can’t be the only means towards an end, and don’t make sense in a lot of cases. Whether Hamas or PFLP perform them is not up to me, I’ll just trust that they know their options better than me. I’m not in a position to teach or moralize them.
I do. Why not? Do everyone fighting the good fight need to be angels? Sure I wish it was pflp leading the fight but anyone opposing Israel gets my support.
They aren’t just towers in the dark. These things have all sorts of sensors on them. I doubt even a submarine is going to stealthily destroy these.
The power grid has way, way more weaknesses that would be way more impactful dont require a submarine to execute. Capitalism has guaranteed we have basically zero spare parts for large transformers. A single person can easily destroy these and do more damage in a war time scenario.
I haven’t heard anything from a third party, and no doubt hamas is exagerating to some degree, but whatever the actual numbers are, I wouldn’t think the current estimate of ~20,000 is far off. Israel is intentionally bombing civilians, so the estimated number sounds fairly reasonable to me.
Easier to confirm, is the proportion of women & children. About half the population of Palestine is children, and about half are women. So ~75% being women or children also fits.
Hamas isn't exaggerating, because the Gaza Health Ministry isn't Hamas except by virtue of Hamas being the government of Gaza. The whole world trusts and uses the GHM's numbers, because they're accurate. Also the real number is more than 19000, because there are people still buried under rubble or otherwise missing.
Dude, I am this 🤏 close to being banned in another community for daring to say that the current event is a genocide of palestinians.
I’m not denying anything, let alone for the sake of convenience. I’m not apathetic. All I’m saying is, is that the current numbers are probably not completely accurate.
I also explicitly said that the current estimate is probably not far off.
First, you’re going to need some sort of evidence to back up this claim.
It’s in their interest to exaggerate, and they are under the control of a terrorist organization.
Second, Hamas isn’t who is publishing these numbers.
My understanding is that the only people tracking & publishing the numbers is the Palestinian health ministry, which is under the control of Hamas. Everyone else is just saying “Gaza’s health ministry said X” and such.
It’s in their interest to exaggerate, and they are under the control of a terrorist organization.
That’s not evidence, that’s another claim. Please provide evidence.
My understanding
You don’t understand the difference between evidence and a claim, so it’s no surprise that you don’t understand anything else that you said after those two words.
Putting greater significance on women and children sounds primitive; all lives should be counted equally. But yes, all men are potentially hamasian by virtue of having the same body parts as hamas, thereby resembling hamas enough to be unworthy of living.
It feels like it’s always the EU picking up the ball on these things. Aren’t there mechanisms in place to monitor these things in the US, or is it legislation (or lack of it) that prevents the government from going after such things?
In the US, you always have to consider the benefits and risks to an elected official. Republicans would get nothing out of putting their new golden boy under a magnifier, but I’m certain that if a democrat tried it, they’d get slandered to hell and back.
The EU probably has no such concern. I don’t know how the EC’s members are picked, but partisanship is probably not as huge a factor. Eventually some EC members were bound to grow a backbone.
I wish our America can just start shedding our old identity and start slowly, but surely, copying Europes identity. Maybe things can change for the better.
I’m not up on EU politics all that much, so I hope someone more informed comes along and posts a better answer, but…
My distant view + guess for as to why it’s different is that they have more than one party. Partisanship is at its worse when there are only 2 of you, as demonstrated by the US system - it’s all finger pointing and “us vs them” that just polarized everything.
In the EU there are (at least?) 7ish “major” political parties, and while some are bigger than others, many actual hold seats and power unlike the US Green and Libertarian “parties” that are essentially meaningless.
As such, any “partisanship” seems at least less extreme. It’s a lot harder to crucify one bad guy when your time and attention is split between 6 “bad guys”. And different parties back different things, so even if 3 were anti-abortion, you’d have to split your slander and hate to three different groups with different OTHER ideas. So it gets a bit lost in sauce.
And on the other side, if you take a strong stance on one issue (such as this one), there are likely multiple parties on your side for that issue since there are unlikely to be 7 opinions, and even if they are, the similar ones can “tag team” a little bit since they’re more in line with each other than the opposing sides are.
If you’ve ever played video games, games with more than 2 teams play very differently than ones that are just one or the other. Dynamics are much more complicated and constantly evolving than they are in a simple “team a vs team b”.
As such, my understanding is that all of these extreme takes are severely diluted since there are more shades of gray and more nuance to the conversation and not just a constant “red vs blue”.
Currently 10 parties in the parliament making up seven fractions. For a supernational parliament the influence of nationalities is generally small, but occasionally it bleeds through.
There’s actually more things that you can call parties operating on the European levels but many aren’t large/successful enough to be granted party status by the parliament. E.g. Pirates generally fraction with Greens/EFA, Volt is split between Greens/EFA and Renew, roughly left-liberal vs. right-liberal, they really don’t seem to be able to decide.
The members of the Commission are chosen by the head of each member state, but also have to be approved by the parliament. So it's kinda like a civil servant that gets vetted by elected representatives
While I have no doubt that the EU has corrupt politicians, It's no where as visibly bad as it is in the US. Most of the people who could bring this forward get something out of what he is doing or contributing to them, and they would rather turn a blind eye than risk losing whatever he is giving them.
For some it's helping out their base, for others its something more monetary.
There are mechanisms there, but they only work when the people watching them are invested in helping the citizens.
I’ve lost all hope for the US to do anything meaningful on topics such as disinformation. I mean, half of the people there vote for people who believe COVID is a hoax and the Jews are firing space lasers at people.
All I can say is, I'm glad Jeff Epstein is dead and some of those who helped promulgate his sickness are in jail also. Far too many men get away with the abuse of women in this society. These men are all mentally ill, and they all need to be jailed for the remainder of their lifetimes.
I apologize, because this kind of sounds like a “not all men” comment, but I promise it’s not meant to be. Unfortunately abuse is not just limited to being perpetrated by men, if I recall correctly Epstein famously had a female accomplice, who was apprehended and is serving time. Anyone perpetuating abuse is despicable and deserves our hate. I guess that goes without saying, however your use of “men” just stuck out in my mind and I wanted to make sure Ghislaine Maxwell and her ilk also get an equal amount of outrage directed at them.
I don’t know if I’d call 20 years a slap on the wrist, it is a significant chunk of time, but it is no where near enough for the shit they did. When I went to Wikipedia to double check my info and saw that was the sentence I was appalled that was all she got. They do all deserve a life sentence for what they did.
Yeah this is one of the rare cases where it’s absolutely fair to point out because it was an entire network with people from both genders participating or complicit in some way! We aren’t discussing statistics, women were involved in these atrocities so it really would make more sense to be inclusive of all the abusers
Yes he did have a female accomplice who I'm happy to say also went to jail. But how often do you hear of women abusing men? I know it goes on, and one problem with any kind of abuse is under reporting by people who are embarrassed and ashamed.
Still from what I've read the greater number of perpetrators is men, just look at all those they just busted for sending solicitations to young girls for sex (I think it was group of 10 or 20 men). None of them gay - all of them straight men with girlfriends or married.
That's who my scorn is heaped upon and always will be. The ones who really commit such atrocities with no concern for the victims.
No thanks. I can do much better. You'll have to learn to fuck yourself - or you'll have to be a rape victim to have any hope of a sex life. Happy holidays!
I didn’t say “fuck you”. I said fuck off. But apparently a rape enabler like yourself can only experience life through transactional sex acts that you have a ranking system for.
So I’ll just state plainly, you are wrong about everything you think about sexuality, sex crimes, and feminism.
I’m very unhappy with Biden’s stance toward Israel. What strategic significance does that state have that outweighs what increasingly looks like genocide? It has to be something so important yet unpalatable to the voting public that it’s worth appearing to come down on the wrong side of history.
Does anyone have any ideas? Is having a western democracy in the middle east that we can work with worth giving said government carte blanche to exterminate their neighbor?
The US has a long track record of supporting some of the most brutal regimes all around the world if it serves their geopolitical interests. In that way its support for Israel isn’t much of an anomaly.
More specifically though, Israel serves as a base from which the US can project military power. That prevents other states in the region from taking full advantage of their natural or geographic resources.
For example, the US wants to ensure oil is traded in US dollars. That creates demand for the dollar which inflates its value relative to other currencies. In that way, US financial capital is given an advantage over the rest of the world. This arrangement isn’t necessarily ideal for oil rich countries as it essentially means some of the value of their oil is getting siphoned off. However, the threat of military intervention may keep these states in line. However, many of them have started to experiment with trading in other currencies which might make the US uneasy.
The second thing I can think of is the US wants to ensure Egypt does not use the Suez Canal as a political weapon like it has historically. In such cases, Israel has been used as proxy through which western countries invaded Egypt to try and take back control of the canal. Since the canal remains very important trade route from which the US and its allies benefit, the US needs some sort of leverage to ensure it stays open to them.
I really appreciate the insight. I don’t think those things are worth US maintaining power in that region, but I imagine if I’m in the shoes of a world leader I might see things more ambiguously.
worldnews
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.