this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023

49 points (75.3% liked)

World News

32118 readers

505 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

jackmarxist@lemmy.ml

zephyreks@lemmy.ml

OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml

Angelina Jolie is losing fans over Israel-Gaza comment (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 11 months ago by TinyPizza@kbin.social to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Concluding her post, the Academy Award winner called for a ceasefire, writing: "Palestinian and Israeli lives—and the lives of all people globally—matter equally." "Anything that can prevent civilian casualties and save lives most be done," she said.

Although some followers praised the Maleficent star for her statement, which had received more than 777,000 likes at time of publishing, others slammed Jolie for refusing to choose sides.

"How did you manage to say so much without saying anything at all?" said Marcelina Maria.

top 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 77 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Anything that can prevent civilian casualties and save lives most be done

What a world where this is a controversial take.

[–] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago

Not so much controversial as just shitty journalism

It says her statement has 77,000 likes, and then gives six examples of people getting angry for no fuckin reason, like they do

Waste of fuckin electrons

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago

Seriously. Two things can be true at the same time. Hamas is a piece of shit terrorist organization that needs to go, and what they recently did was absolutely horrific. AND Israel’s aggressive bombing campaign is hurting civilians and like the US did after 9/11, is radicalizing people and helping terrorists to recruit.

We’ve seen this story play out over and over. The only thing that’s changed is an increasing amount of bodies being thrown into the meat grinder.

[+] stella@lemm.ee -9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Probably because it could allude to "Israel must surrender" or "Gaza must surrender."

The world is a little bit more complicated than fantasy-land tweets from celebrities.

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And comments like yours are the reason this world is so shitty. You're basically taking a very clear and neutral statement and imply that this "could theoretically also be a statement from the side I don't like!!!!". And that's lazy at best.

If "don't kill innocent people" is too complicated, then maybe it's a you problem, not a world problem.

[+] stella@lemm.ee -11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Calm down.

You should look up what 'platitude' means then come back.

If “don’t kill innocent people” is too complicated, then maybe it’s a you problem, not a world problem.

I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You don't offer anything to comprehend. All your comments in this thread boil down to "it's too complicated, better to do nothing".

And that is lazy or stupid or downright evil, but not the "aloof" take you might think it is. It's intellectual capitulation.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 48 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That’s just silly. She picked a side; it just didn’t align with some people’s “us vs them at any cost” perspective.

Good for her for yet again standing up for what she believes.

[+] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world -6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Which side did she pick even? Different groups can interpret her statement differently, I imagine.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Putting 5 bucks on zionists being mad at her for not supporting Israel's right to genocide people

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Can I collect your $5?

Because it looks like pretty much all of the comments in the article were the opposite take:

"If you're neutral in situations of injustice, you've chosen the side of the oppressor," said lifeashira.

"Call it what it is a genocide!!" said Afuhana Suria. "Disappointed but then again expected nothing less from the likes of you!!"

"Interesting that even after 3 weeks, you are still choosing to acknowledge Israel before Palestine," wrote KK.

"You've lost my respect," said A.T, while allyroza commented: "You can now stop calling yourself a humanitarian. Shame on you."

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago

Civilians.

[–] stella@lemm.ee -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

She picked the side that has no solutions but wants problems to be fixed.

[–] TinyPizza@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Who has the solution?

[–] stella@lemm.ee -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We don't know until the problem is solved, but people who have suggestions are saying more than this person.

[–] TinyPizza@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Stopping civilian casualties seems like a valid first step, no?

[–] stella@lemm.ee -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How?

[–] TinyPizza@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Any sort of ceasefire or halt in the bombing campaign to allow for the stabilization of the civilian population and to give them time to find safer ground seems like the universal first step. The major criticism here is largely the civilian death toll, collective punishment by denying the basic fundamentals to sustain human life, and the inconsistent messaging that's leading to more civilian deaths. Putting those lives over short term victory goals seems the smarter move for a lasting peace.

[–] stella@lemm.ee -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. If she said any of that then odds are she wouldn't be criticized nearly as harshly.

She never said bombing should stop, because that would condemn Israel.

[–] TinyPizza@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

she cannot condone "the innocent lives lost in bombing a civilian population in Gaza that has nowhere to go."
"No access to food and water, possibility of evacuation, and not even the basic human right to cross a border to seek refuge," she continued.
"The few aid trucks that are entering are a fraction of what is needed, and the bombings are causing desperate new humanitarian needs daily," she said.
"The denial of aid, fuel and water is collectively punishing a people."

I mean, that's how this reads to me.

[–] stella@lemm.ee -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nah. It's like Donald Trump being very careful about his wording because he knows that being honest will result in consequences.

She's saying these things are going on and that they are horrible, but not that they should stop.

[–] TinyPizza@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Eh, would you and me have gone further? Sure. But she didn't have to say anything and she instead did put her career on the line by saying anything. All those things she said right there are valid criticisms. She even goes as far to mention collective punishment (war crime). This whole second half of her statement reads like "stop" while clearly also not trying to be labeled an antisemite. Is she walking a line, sure, but she also didn't have to say shit and she certainly didn't have to say this.

[–] stella@lemm.ee -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

She didn't put anything on the line.

while clearly also not trying to be labeled an antisemite.

Yeah. She cares more about being mislabelled an 'antisemite' than actually criticizing Israel.

[–] TinyPizza@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

She accused them of a war crime...

[–] Infernal_pizza@lemmy.world 38 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I love how not killing civilians is now considered controversial

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 30 points 11 months ago

I read the article expecting some kind of hateful comment, and it turns out she was on the side of civilians over Likud and Hamas - which I think is a refreshingly well thought out position. I'd question whether she is really losing fans overall, or if this is just clickbait. Haters are always going to hate, but just because a few people criticise someone doesn't mean there is a net trend against them.

[–] FaizalR@kbin.social 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It is better to lose fans over human lives.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Her losing fans because of her opinion on the subject doesn’t stop people getting killed though

[–] FaizalR@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

Because Israel doesn't care and they have a country that supports their acts.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Just because a lot of people are interpreting her statement as supporting "their" side (when it's a neutral statement about civilians in general), and as a result thinking that the people triggered by her neutrality must be from the "other" side - I'd encourage actually reading the article to see what position was generally the one upset about her statements, as it's the opposite group of whom many here are assuming.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.de 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What else do you expect from the rabid cesspool that is Twitter-formerly-known-and-always-will-be-known-as-Twitter.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Huh. I’ve been calling it “loser Elon’s twat palace”.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work -4 points 11 months ago

You all leave that beautiful woman alone!