this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
75 points (97.5% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2729 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
 

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres arrived at the BRICS summit in the Russian city of Kazan on Oct. 22, despite criticism from Ukraine, Voice of America reported.

The BRICS group, a bloc of countries that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates, is convening in Kazan for a three-day summit from Oct. 22-24. According to Moscow, 36 world leaders are participating in the conference.

Guterres is expected to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the event on Oct. 24, according to Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov.

Ukraine's Foreign Ministry criticized the U.N. secretary general's visit.

MBFC
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (12 children)

So, that's a no.

As long as there's an Arab or Persian population around and angry, there's no 100% safety. I'm sure you know that. If anything that stands in the way of Israel's safety is a legitimate target, which is what you're saying at this point, you're talking about genocide.

This is the part where I mention I myself am Jewish, if never practicing, and that kind of thing is painfully ironic.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

Where did I say that Israel needs to wipe out any particular population? I said they need to deal with Hezbollah, which is a genocidal terror army, and then deal with the Iranian regime, which is a genocidal Islamist government regime. Putting off a two state solution until the Palestinians can agree to stop trying to murder Jews isn't advocating for genocide. That's a ridiculous statement you made.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

Glad to hear that's not what you're saying - it really feels like that's where the region is headed.

What's the alternative to a two-state solution? One state is a pipe dream right now, and the status quo leaves Israel unsafe. Even if every single individual Hamas fighter was killed somehow, there's a lot of Palestinians who want revenge for the destruction of their whole world, and another organisation would start.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Does it really feel like that's where the region is headed? Is that why Israel keeps telling Gazans and Lebanese people to move out of target areas? Don't you think Israel could eliminate all 2 million Gazans in a few hours if they wanted to? Step back from the propaganda and think critically for a minute.

If you think there are a lot of Palestinians who want revenge, that's all the more reason to postpone the recognition of a Palestinian state. Part of the problem with the two state solution is that it rests on a faulty assumption: that statehood is a goal of the Palestinian people. The past 75 years of history shows that to be false. If they wanted a state, they would have one. The goal of the Palestinian people (or to be fair, the Palestinian leadership) has always been the destruction of Israel. That's what has always defined Palestinian nationalism. So pushing the 2SS is pushing a solution on the Israelis and Palestinians that the latter never wanted, and now the former don't really want either.

The only real solution is one that will take time and involves several important developments:

  1. Israel eliminates the immediate genocidal Islamist threats. That includes not only Hamas and Hezbollah, but preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
  2. Israel will have to retain some level of security control over Gaza while rebuilding plans are developed. An interim government will have to step in to govern Gaza, which will likely be a coalition of the PA and moderate Arab countries (like UAE, SA, etc).
  3. The Iranian regime must be removed from power. They are the biggest impediment to peace in the region and the people of Iran want them gone.
  4. Israel continues to develop the Abraham Accords with moderate Arab nations. and, eventually, with a moderate Iranian leadership.
  5. Palestinian leaders emerge with a vision for a thriving Palestinian state that can coexist peacefully with Israel. One of these leaders beats the PA in an election and begins the process of developing a Palestinian state.
  6. Everyone lives happily ever after.
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Is that why Israel keeps telling Gazans and Lebanese people to move out of target areas?

I agree that propaganda is bad, but both sides make it. That's why I like hard numbers so much.

It's clear they want to look merciful, especially to their Western patrons. You'll recall that the Nazis had a voluntary emigration program at first, and then blamed anyone still around for not leaving. (Israel isn't the Nazis, but maybe Yugoslavia)

As for your numbered plan, I feel like it makes some unrealistic assumptions. Like that step 1 is possible, and that Israel won't keep building out settlements instead of actually helping Palestine. It's basically Likud's publicly announced plan, which the IDF leadership itself doesn't buy.

In practice, if they try that, insurgent activity will never stop, and the Israeli occupation will never turn into a strong Palestinian state. It's just a matter of time then before Israelis get tired of it and contemplate something more extreme, as a minority already openly are.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I see, so you think Israel is telling civilians to move just so they *look *merciful. Because it just can't be possible that Israeli leaders are human beings with consciences and actually want to prevent civilian death if they can. Is that the implication?

Yes, of course my plan rests on a lot of assumptions. The settlements are the most complex part of negotiating peace between the two sides. But agreements have been reached in principle in the past (like Camp David and Taba). It's difficult but not impossible, provided both sides are willing to figure it out. I probably should have included in my plan that the Netanyahu government eventually has to be replaced by a more moderate administration.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

human beings with consciences

That's never stopped us humans before. Germans are nice people, too. And Palestinians, for that matter - and yet Oct. 7 happened. Regardless of what the Torah says, we're not special of different from the rest.

Look, it's easy enough to make make wild assumptions, but at that point you're on the same level with the one-state-solution people. I want my government to treat this like every other international ethnic conflict, because that's what it is. Putting the Bosnians or Serbs individually in charge of the former Yugoslavia wouldn't have been good, and neither will helping the Israelis do whatever they want.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I never said we're special. But if the IDF is telling people to move out of harm's way in the middle of a war, the simplest and most likely explanation is that they don't want to kill those people.

Unfortunately this is not like every other ethnic conflict. That's where the left is wrong, thinking this is just the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and we can sort it out with diplomacy. Those of us who understand the broader context don't see it as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict but the Israel/Iran war. This is about a genocidal Islamist regime that wants Israel literally destroyed and is willing to destroy countries and sacrifice their people (Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria) to accomplish that goal. *They're *the bad guys here.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

So do you think if the Iranian government fell (not far fetched, as you mentioned - they're domestically unpopular), the issue would go away? I really don't. They're part of it, but it seems more like opportunism to gain support and influence than anything else.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Over the long term, yes.

There will always be jihadists and Islamist terrorists will always exist on a small scale, but without the backing of Iran none of it would exist on a scale that can threaten Israel or other countries in the region. The moderate Sunni countries like SA would become the main Muslim influence in the region and could help bring the Middle East into a new era of peace and prosperity.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Saudi is moderate on Israel, I guess, but they're even more brutal than Iran in most other ways. The Middle East is a rough neighborhood.

That's a pretty strong claim, and seems to fly in the face of the fact that there's more Arabs than Iranians out there by far. The Iranian revolution was in the mid 70's. You know Israel had to fight for it's existence several times before that, right? The borders everyone is telling Israel to respect are the 1967 ones, even...

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, the Middle East is a rough, regressive, oppressive neighborhood. Islam has a lot to do with that.

But there are Muslim countries that have shown an interest in at least progressing from the most archaic and extreme interpretations of Islam. Those countries are pursuing normalization with Israel not because they suddenly like Jews, but because they respect the strength and prosperity of Israel and recognize it as a valuable partner for their own national development. These countries have put their past conflicts with Israel behind them.

Ironically, the people of Iran are among the least antisemitic in that part of the world. They scored lower on the ADL Global 100 than Greece!

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Islam is slightly remixed Judaism. It's annoying when Christians do this, and it's annoying if Jews do this, too. Islamic civilisation was better and more progressive than the ones in Europe for a long time, even.

I really hope you stick to this line in the future, I guess. If you're right, everything will be fine. If I'm right and you stay true to it, we'll be on the same side shortly.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)