World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I acknowledged that when I said "If a Palestinian leader becomes too moderate, Hamas will do their own thing.".
No, they don't. There are many blameless Palestinians. And there are Israelis who voted for the current government, they surely carry more guilt in this war than Palestinian victims.
Firstly, I never said they have to accept it. If you think war is the only means of not accepting and trying to change it, it says a lot about you. Secondly, someone else in this comment section said: "what will lead to an enduring peace is actually more important than what is just."
This is why this will never end.
Like I told you, it's Israel that "mows the grass" to make sure no moderate gets ahead. Bargouti is in an Israeli jail.
But that's the point: if it is not just, it will not be enduring. I don't understand what is confusing about "no justice no peace". Justice by the way does not mean that Palestinians get everything. It means that they get enough to feel that they have gotten a deal they can live with. Ireland is a fantastic example here actually. The Irish didn't get a united Ireland in the early 20th century, but they got an independent country. And in the next chapter of struggle, the republicans and the unionists again didn't get everything, but they got enough to get to a place they can live with. But Britain had to fucking let go in both cases. The Israelis have to fucking let go and they have to come to terms with what they've done and realize that they will have to pay some kind of reparation at the very least.
Nothing about it is confusing, it is very clear. And it is an absolute position that will make this conflict go on forever. Why? Because in an asymmetric conflict like this, there will always be injustice.
You have to find a way to end this injustice with peaceful means. I refuse to accept that only violence can solve this. That's all I am saying.
What absolute position? I wrote a whole paragraph after the bit that you quote exactly on why it is not an absolute position.
Okay, I admit I didn't pay enough attention to what you wrote. Probably because I don't like being lectured about history.
But in that case, even better! They tried working on a two-state solution. It was shot down, but you gotta try again. And again. And again.
Everything Israel and the Palestinians are doing at the moment is the exact opposite. They create more violence, hatred, death, destruction and desire for vengeance, which in turn will be the fuel for more decades of war.
Stop both sides-ing for goodness sake! There are no two equal sides here. There are the perpetrators and the victims of a genocide, of apartheid, and of occupation.
Not to mention that you are literally factually wrong. Hamas controls Gaza but the PA controls the West Bank. There is nothing the PA does that "creates violence, hatred, destruction and desire for vengeance" among Israelis. So to be extremely clear YOUR FRAMING IS FACTUALLY WRONG. The PA has recognized Israel, supports the two state solution. The PA is so actively trying to supress radicals that if you look around this thread you will see people accusing it of being collaborationists. And what do they get in response? Colonization, occupation, apartheid, and pogroms. If Israel achieves its war goals and eliminates Hamas from Gaza, the result will be that that insufferable misery also extended there. The Palestinians are literally given a choice of genocide or apartheid, of a quick fiery death or a slow bleeding death. This is Israel's policy and it isn't just Bibi, it is the Israeli state policy of the last 30 fucking years.
Interesting thread, although your definition of 'Justice' being one where 'each side gets what they can live with' isn't quite in line with how it's defined. Many dictionaries word it slightly differently, but it all boils down to legality and morality, both of which have no absolute basis.
I.e. any side can cite any law or moral reference to support their view(s) and establish a casus belli. That only their described outcome is 'just'. Justice =! compromise or reparation. It's merely an interpretation.
In our current frame of reference, what Bibi and the Israeli forces are doing is reprehensible. However, the cessation and 'deradicalization' of such actors followed by the delivery of some form of 'justice' to all concerned doesn't deliver a blank slate and an enduring solution, simply because the interpretation and basis of justice is so vastly different for each involved state in the whole region.
The concept of justice I'm advocating for in this context (and I'm not claiming to be a moral philosopher) is a mix of Transitional and Restorative concepts of justice. I'm inspired from things like ending vendettas/blood feuds. For such long standing conflicts, absolute justice is just not realizable, because absolute evil has already happened. However we can get to functional relationships and communities that work towards a future. So when I say ‘each side gets what they can live with’ I mean exactly the question of how far can you get to justice without breaking the future. And I actually mean "live with" not just tolerate but actually live. It's not a compromise in the sense of horse trading, it is a compromising in the sense of accepting that some wrongs just cannot be amended but that a better future is still possible.
I understand your description of justice in this context. Could you follow that with real life examples of where a lasting peace has been achieved between actors after an 'absolute evil' has been done that meets your definition?
Also, what constitutes 'living' in your context? Would say, the relationship / situation between Greece and Turkey be accurately classified as living, even though quite some 'hatred' bubbles beneath the surface?
I am quite eurocentric, so take this as a caveat. France and Germany I guess would be the most obvious and successful example? And Germany with like the Netherlands, Poland, etc. Ireland with the UK are getting there too possibly. Sub-nationally, I would add South Africa to the list, maybe also Catalonia, Basque and Quebec (but they're not winning the oppression olympics).
For Greece and Turkey I think it's still an unfinished project (Cyprus is the proof of that). We have achieved a big degree of functional reconciliation, but mistrust, hatred, and shenanigans persist (my theory: this because neither nation properly reconciled with the fact that we based our peace on mutual ethnic cleansing...).
And here is the weird take of the day: I wouldn't be too shy to say that a lot of the Balkans have "advanced" to a point where in practice memes and teasing (think 2balkan4u) serve as a sort of a weird fucked up balkan version of truth and reconciliation...
But that's the point, right? Justice seen as a process. Nothing can ever be said to be "done" but you can get more towards it.
The ww2 example (assuming that's what you're referring to) is a very brief (if violent) conflict relative to the one we're discussing in this topic, which is spread over at least centuries. Not too mention that ww2 was a burst of activity and a decisive conclusion was reached, unlike the conflict in question. Greece/turkey is a good example of a conflict that lasts at least a similar duration. Ireland/UK is also closer in that regard, but still is 'only' over decades of conflict.
With centuries of bad blood, the respective definitions of 'justice' from either side (in their various forms) have clearly drifted very far apart from each other. The 'how' aside (as seemingly no one is willing to nor able to achieve it), what would a realistic and just peace look like in your eyes for the region? Because I think we have to accept that (base on Greece/Turkey) a feud that lasts over a century is not overcome in one generation.
I won't say much about the Balkans as I'm not well read on it and it seems to be one with more than two main actors.
The Franco-German rivalry I had in mind is much older. WW2 was the very final phase of it, but it is clearly present and recognizable at least as early as 1871, ie 70 years earlier, whereas the supposed chronology goes all the way back to the 1400s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French%E2%80%93German_enmity
Regardless, I don't have the answer, obviously, but I wouldn't underestimate the capacity of the Israelis and Palestinians to actually get to a (likely implicit/de facto) agreement of what they think is an acceptable answer. But for that, I would imagine serious external pressure to Israel would be needed, similar as the one exerted to the white Afrikaners...
I see. You referred to Poland/Netherlands and Belgium together so I thought it was more likely ww2 that you were referring to.
The extended feud between France and Germany is a good example. Today they are what I think we are is a 'just and lasting' peace. This however was precluded by the violence of ww2. Quite far from a peaceful reconciliation although it was quite final (so far).
Over the centuries prior, did other neighbouring nations or further abroad attempt to pressure either (or both) sides to reconcile in a peaceful manner? Did it ever work out?
What I'm getting at here in a rather long winded manner is that the underlying friction between Israel and Palestine (or Hamas or other neighbouring Islamic states) go back very far, and it likely will be only time that will heal this to a lasting reconciliation. External pressures likely will only become counterproductive.
In the meantime, more will suffer. Moreso on the 'weaker' side. We can point fingers all we want, but from their frame of reference, our versions of justice are simply incompatible with theirs. To us, their apparent lack of morality is infantile.