dx1 @ dx1 @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

761

Joined

2 yr. ago

Not sure if you're posting this as support of IDF claims. The videos they've released have been absolutely ridiculous, show multiple signs of planted evidence (e.g. the same scene completely changing when shown to different news outlets) and do not support the assertion of a sophisticated underground command center.

Just like Shifa Hospital isn’t used as a terrorist base.

Despite the raid ~24 hours ago, and the release, deletion and then re-release of an "uncut" video of the hospital since then, this absolutely remains to be proven. If anything the burden of proof has gone up, after the absolute bullshit they just published about it and about Rantisi hospital.

Also it's "Al Shifa", as in, "The Healing".

"Godwin's Law" only said that the comparison to Nazis becomes inescapable the longer a conversation goes (not the common interpretation "whoever says Nazi first loses"). If I remember right he actually went back later and said it's perfectly fine to draw the Nazi analogy to fascist states.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/despite-bidens-doubts-humanitarian-agencies-consider-gaza-toll-reliable-2023-10-27/

The health ministry is a medical organization, regardless of being under Hamas rule.

Yeah, Hamas isn't as bad as Israel, it's literally a resistance movement to the people that ethnically cleansed their population from their land and kept them in a concentration camp for two decades. The unbalanced condemnation tbph is the result of a concerted Israeli/Western propaganda campaign to obscure the context and nature of the attacks, including the hundreds of Palestinian people killed in 2023 before Oct. 7, and more fundamentally, the fact that Israel has been keeping 2.4M people in a high-tech concentration camp for the last two decades.

The atrocity claims against Hamas from Oct. 7 have some serious evidentiary issues at this point, even including some unknown number of the civilian deaths being attributable to the IDF (literally firing at, shelling and bombing Israeli citizens - though to be clear, there is video of Hamas shooting civilians as well). You compare this to the inhuman genocide being levied against Palestinians now - food, water, electricity, fuel, medicine being cut off for 5 weeks at this point, likely upwards of 20,000 civilians killed, at least half of the buildings in Gaza damaged or destroyed, attacks on hospitals, schools, refugee camps, ambulances, journalists, aid workers, without legitimate substantiation of their repurposing for military purposes - these are crimes against humanity. There is no equivalence here.

Maybe the U.S. upvoted that to discredit China /j

Russia arguably gains via ties with Iran and decrease of U.S. influence in the region. But, as far as news, reporting, information are concerned, it's pretty irrelevant, if there's actual propaganda then let it be shown and debunked, and even Iranian RT right now is barely saying anything surprising to anyone who's been watching what's happening on the ground.

It's grotesque to me people that keep repeating this. The accusations of genocide almost universally relate to after Oct. 7. And population growth over a 60 year stretch does not discredit incitement to genocide or actions taken to attempt genocide.

The comparisons to the Nazis are actually inescapable. I struggle to think of a centrally orchestrated and mechanized system of apartheid/oppression and now genocide that's more similar.

It doesn't matter if you're willing to change, the world changes you anyway, that's what I'm saying. If you're talking about persuading people, that's a question of technique. I'm not gonna pretend I'm great at that, I have a pretty short temper, but there are ways.

I don't think that's true. Our mentalities change throughout our entire lives because of events and information we never anticipated.

Got your reply and had to scroll back up to remember if this post was about Biden or Trump...

Honestly I can't remember an election cycle in the last 20 years where somebody didn't say something stupid and people tried to turn it into a question about their mental fitness. It's part of the excruciating minutia of examining every mole and freckle on the body of political candidates to see if they're qualified for a job that shouldn't even exist in the first place. The blind fixations of American politics on the personality of candidates who are basically universally betraying them years before they even get into office.

I think you're going to be dealing with them on that level of engagement as long as you don't correct it. And as long as they are, they're gonna be subject to the same kinds of manipulation that they are now.

"Flubs" I think are the absolutely least interesting thing* in politics, that people just love to focus on.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. - Eleanor Roosevelt

Well, first off, apologies for writing an essay in this comment, but I did a deep dive checking all my facts here.

On 26 May Nasser declared, “The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.”

So, right off the bat, simply pointing to a seemingly offensive intent does not enter a "preemptive war" into a legal grey area under international law. The UN Charter (Article 2 (4)) simply prohibits the initiation of armed conflict, absent a UN Security Council resolution authorizing an enforcement action.

Second, this is naturally a huge oversimplification to portray the origins of the conflict as "preemptive defensive attack". As you'll typically find with this kind of "let's destroy Israel for no reason!" rationale being painted over Arab countries.

The actual origin of the conflict goes back to the mid 1950s, with the Suez Crisis. Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal on July 26, 1956, prompting Western powers to try to find a way to unseat Nasser. Israel invaded the Sinai on Oct 29 1956 - the UN Security Council convened the next day, US submitted a draft resolution calling for Israel to withdraw behind the 1949 armistice lines, which Britain and France vetoed and then sent in an air attack the next day. Security Council passed resolution 119, which called for an emergency special session of the UN GA, which passed resolution 997 (ES-I), calling for an immediate ceasefire, withdrawal of all forces behind the 1949 armistice lines, arms embargo, and the reopening of the Suez Canal. Soon after, they passed resolution 1001, establishing the UNEF force to perform peacekeeping throughout the Sinai, prompting the withdrawal of British and French forces by the end of the year, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces by March 1957. This was the source of the general tension prior to the 1967 war - the "tripartite conspiracy" between Britain, France and Israel, to coerce control of the Suez Canal via an invasion of the Sinai.

Going into the 1960s - the first key event is Israel invading Jordan in the Samu Incident, on Nov 13 1966 (and, as usual, they destroyed everyone's houses in the village of Samu). Yitzhak Rabin, then the Chief of General Staff in Israel, declared "the moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian government" in response to the Ba'ath party coming into power in Syria and sponsoring guerilla Palestinian groups attacking Israel. Israel shot down 6 MIG-21s from the Syrian Air Force on April 7th. Moshe Dayan, Israeli Defense Minister, attested to a reporter that they were purposefully instigating clashes on the Syrian border basically by having a tractor cross territorial lines until troops on the other side became aggravated. An apparently false report was delivered on May 13 to Nasser from the USSR, that Israel had been amassing its army on the Syrian border, and the next day he ordered the troop movement into the Sinai, on May 13/14. All these things indicated a sense that Israel was escalating hostilities and prompted a defensive troop movement from Egypt, and Nasser's vice president requested the UNEF peacekeeping force evacuate in the case of hostilities breaking out. Israeli planes, soon after (May 17/18), had fired warning shots and "buzzed" a UNEF plane to attempt to force it to land inside Israel, claiming it had violated Israel's air space (despite that it was flying within Egyptian territory, from El Arish to Gaza). At this point, on May 23, Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran on its eastern border to Israeli ships, a contentious closure that the U.S. maintained was illegal, but predicated on agreements (namely this) Egypt was not yet a party to (see also this re: the legality) - and Nasser suggested adjudicating the issue in the ICC. Egyptian radio was publicly announcing during this general period whole period that they were on "maximum alert" for an Israeli attack. The "Waiting period", the article you linked, describes exactly that - Egypt moved its troops into a defensive position and waited for three weeks in anticipation of an Israeli attack, which materialized as Operation Focus, a surprise attack on the air forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria, the first clear act of hostilities.

To provide some key quotes to this point:

In another 1972 interview, Mordechai Bentov, a former member of the Israeli ruling coalition during the June war, stated: “This whole story about the threat of extermination was totally contrived and then elaborated on afterwards to justify the annexation of new Arab territories.”

Despite these moves by Nasser, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in his autobiography “Nasser did not want war; he wanted victory without war”. James Reston of the New York Times wrote from Cairo on June 4th that: “Cairo does not want war and it is certainly not ready for war.” In 1968 Yitzak Rabin said: “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” In 1982, Israeli Prime Minister Begin admitted: “In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” Reinforcing the position that Egypt was not prepared for war with Israel, Egypt then had 50,000 of its crack troops tied down in Yemen.

Some sources: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/the-six-day-war-and-a-possible-resolution/

https://web.stanford.edu/group/tomzgroup/pmwiki/uploads/0345-1967-06-KS-a-EYJ.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy56Q1a0Flc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn3RUZsaPmg&t=1s

And yet they still happen. Expecting lands and access to them to be granted to an enemy while they remain belligerent is absurd.

I say again, annexation of land is a violation of international law, either in an offensive or defensive war. It is not a "grant", it's that state's land to begin with.

Differentiate the state of Israel - a religious and ethnic supremacist state from its beginning, by definition - and the inhabitants of the state. Getting tired of that little rhetorical trick where disagreeing with a state actively committing a genocide is supposed to make you sound "antisemitic".

Do you not see the contradiction in claiming that the "military industrial complex" owns the pool of all the politicians, but then refusing to vote outside that pool?

Dems ran Hillary Clinton in '16 - a horrifying, war mongering two-face, basically. What was the reaction of the GOP? Elect Trump. He seemed reasonable to them compared to her. They think it's "lesser of two evils" too. I would argue that the horrible candidates across the aisle guarantee our slide towards fascism and even the theocracy the GOP is pushing.

The concern is exactly the opposite. Israel has been procedurally annexing Palestinian land for decades - the concern, if anything, is that a one state solution would abrogate the rights of Palestinians, because that's precisely what Israel has done with annexations repeatedly in the past. It's in fact a requirement to abolish the religious/ethnic supremacism inherent in the Israeli state, in which political parties are even banned from even opposing a Jewish nationalist identity (the 2018 "nation-state" law), and start from scratch with a constitution that actually guarantees equal rights across ethnic groups, in order to achieve equal rights in the region, barring something like the bottom half of Israel being given up to allow a contiguous, fully independent state between Gaza and the West Bank.

The problem most of you aren't dealing with is that Israel was founded fairly recently (75 years) on the ethnic cleansing/expulsion of the Palestinian population. These endless repeated claims about "Israel's right to exist", "Israel's right to defense", "Israel's right to sovereignty" - many of them aren't even true under international law in the first place, and they ignore the problem that the land they currently claim was unlawfully obtained, and that the people it was stolen who still live under Israeli rule have been oppressed, starved, murdered, poisoned, etc. for decades, under a dehumanizing system of apartheid. There is no just solution attainable in this conflict without concessions from Israel.

The 1967 war that Israel started?

Did you know annexation of land is illegal in both offensive and defensive wars, too?

Either gotta sweep the elections completely, or just put a new system in place. Biggest obstacle is these dumbass Biden voters, collectively going "we can't vote for another party because it might fracture the vote".