News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
How do you handle this situation where everyone comes out happy? It seems so complicated on many fronts that I don’t even know how I would tackle it if I were in any position to make calls.
It's not about everyone being "happy". It's okay to not get everything you want and be content. The Israeli leadership over the past few decades has been everything but content. For them it has always been all our nothing.
The problem in this context is that Israel gets EVERYTHING at the expense of poor American taxpayers and dead Palestinean families.
Palestinians don't believe in any compromises. Examples are numerous situations where they were accepted refugees and then started civil war in those countries.
The world, and especially Middle East, is not black and white.
Someone said a while ago: you might start with sorting Isreal, because many western countries do, then you start learning more about the conflict and you start sympathizing with Palestinians who are being pressed, then you learn more and start understanding Israel.
Eventually you realize that this is a very fucked up situation with no clear good guys.
You leave it the fuck alone and stop throwing money at a situation that doesn't involve you.
The US has a horrible track record of meddling in other countrys' business.
I sometimes fantasize about what South America could have looked like if the US didn't continually assassinate state leaders.
So we should just stand by and let them commit genocide against Palestinians?
We're not stopping any of the other genocides currently happening. It's not our job to be the international police.
Edit: People seem to be forgetting that the US committed genocide as recently as, like, 5 years ago. We can barely govern ourselves, much less another country.
...Even granting the rest of the comment, and I really shouldn't even do that, why in God's name would it be in the US's best interest to support a democracy? If it's governed by self interest, it would be better served by propping up a pliable dictator or absolutist monarch. It's what the British did in Africa, after all. Hell, half of the middle east is exactly like that right now.
No, that does not follow. The assertion was that it's about best interest. Being a democracy is irrelevant. Priding itself is not best interest, and the fact that even you can't not mention the Saudis just proves democracy is entirely optional. In fact, the US is on a very friendly basis with most of the middle east, from Bahrein to Turkey. Hell, there's an argument to be made democracy is actually detrimental to US relations.
And how exactly does proving support for allies promote democracy? If anything, the real proof would be support regardless of what the ally does. Conditioning support on democracy would just be a loophole.
First and foremost, you get rid of the current state of Palestine, which is the worst of all possible worlds: it's two distinct areas with their own unique dictatorships, which Israel declares simultaneously sovereign and occupied. This is pointless and makes everything worse.
Either of these would be better; I will focus on Gaza here, but mirror everything I say for the West Bank.
Very much this. Adding onto 1, the blockade needs to go. Like, seriously, without the blockade the whole mess between Gaza and Israel can be solved basically overnight. That said,
It's not. It keeps Palestine divided and unable to push for peace, because "there's no representative of the Palestinian people". The Israeli government made it this way, on purpose.
Not just them unfortunately, Palestine was split in two since the beginning
The beginning of what? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question.)
In regards to your first proposal, that was the strategy in 2005. Before then, Israel occupied Gaza in the same way in occupies the West Bank. The Prime Minister at the time, Ariel Sharon, was intending to unilaterally withdraw from all the occupied territories in hopes of pursuing a true peace. The IDF forcibly evicted all Jewish settlers in the Gaza Strip, withdrew, and elections were held in Gaza. The winner was Hamas, whose stated aim is the violent destruction of Israel, and they began lobbing rockets at Israel. The conflict escalated, Israel imposed a tight blockade in an effort to prevent the import of weapons (and quite probably motivated by some amount of revenge as well), domestic Israeli support for unilateral withdrawal plummeted, and in 2006, a war between Hezbollah in Lebanon kicked off, whose aim is also explicitly the violent destruction of Israel. Given that this was launched from parts of southern Lebanon that had been occupied by Israel until 2000, when the IDF unilaterally withdrew, Israelis increasingly became of the opinion that any area where they gave up control would simply become a base to launch attacks against Israel.
At this point, the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza is seen as a massive mistake, and Israel is not going to make it again. Moving forward, Israel is not going to be willing to sacrifice its safety in order to offer an olive branch.
Well, someone with more middle east knowledge than me can tell me if I'm retarded, but here's my take:
There needs to be compromise instead of this all or nothing approach that both sides want. A lot of land needs to be given back to the Palestinians, probably close to half the country so it feels fair. Holy sites that both sides claim need to go to neither. Something like, a monument is erected on the holy site and it is seen as a DMZ that is cared for by volunteers from both sides, but is not open to civilians and can be admired from afar. Then both people can have a mosque or synagogue off to the side on their respective land.
There needs to be som kind of de-armament program where Israel gives up much of its military and both countries agree not to arm. We need something like a NATO where other countries are willing to back Israel and Palestine should the other break the terms of the agreement and become an agressor.
In short, Israel would have to give up a hell of a lot that it has absolutely no intention of ever doing. And then, only then, do you have a chance that in a few generations the Palestinians don't hate them anymore for what the put their parents through. I don't see it ever happening, not because it's impossible, but because large changes like this usually only ever happen after a devastating war, and right now the world supports Israel.
Your core premise is wrong since there is nothing to "give back" to Palestinians. There were no Palestinians back then. The so-called disputed territories in the West Bank were, if anything, Jordanian. The Gaza strip was Egypt, and even they don't want it. In the Egypt-Israel peace agreement, Egypt wanted Sinai back but did not want the Gaza Strip.
Do you honestly believe that if Israel gives up its military, there will be peace?! Every time Israel says peace-for-peace or even land-for-peace, it quite literally blows up in our face. There is no compromising with an organization whose main goal is to kill you. It's in their charter, and they have more than proved their intentions over the years, and most recently, just now to start this war.
We Jews have learned our lesson after hundreds of years of being persecuted to not trust other people to protect us. We all know how that turned out in the holocaust. Hamad are the Nazis. Hamas is ISIS. Never again means never again.
You've become what you hate, IMO.