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.
-
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 10/19
-
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
It’s about 6 months too late, maybe more, but I’ll take it
Now maybe try some kind of fuckin consequences maybe, before another 10% of the population of Gaza gets buried under rubble or dies of scurvy or infection or being shot by a sniper
I agree, but it's all relative. This is coming from Biden who has been a huge supporter of Israel, letting them do pretty much whatever they want to do since forever. This seems like a huge step for the man, given where he's coming from.
edit: Just realized I wasn't super clear. I was referring to the consequences part and how even if we want that, just Biden saying something as was reported is a pretty big step from where we were. I pretty much agree completely with @mozz@mbin.grits.dev.
There have been a ton of reports like this, where he allegedly gives Bibi a talking to behind closed doors, and then publicly continues to fully support him
White House staffers even have a nickname for it. It's called the "hug Bibi strategy" which reportedly has been in place since the Obama administration.
So I think the reports are accurate. Biden seems to think publicly supporting Israel is the best way to arrive at a ceasefire. Of course doing something ineffective and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.
What complicates matters is that there are actually good reasons to supply Israel with some military equipment. Many Israelis are living there in 3rd or sometimes 4th generation. Putting the let's call it complicated circumstances of Israels founding aside, they are a people and deserve self-determination (just like the Palestinians do). The often repeated line "Israel has the right to defend itself" is not only a line it's also true. You can't just cut them of from all military assistance. So any policy is going to look kind of contradictory.
All of this isn't me defending the Biden administration. It's just me pointing out, that a substantially different policy would look very similar. You would hear a lot of "friends tell friends the truth" and Israel would only get the weapons they actually need to DEFEND itself (iron dome missiles etc.)
And that's something they should definitely do
If I break into your house, is it defense to shoot you when you try to take it back?
Israel, as a settler-colonial ethnostate, is not compatible with the human rights of the Palestinians who live there.
The only solution is to address the reason they Palestinians fire rockets: Return their homes, their right for exiled Palestinians to return, and an end to apartheid. None of this is compatible with the Israeli national project.
Where does the 10% number come from? It's less than 1.5% and it includes Hamas terrorists as well.
The thirty-whatever thousand number is direct deaths that can be observed and counted up, I.e. a vast undercount of the actual number.
The Lancet determined a couple of months ago that you could at that point conservatively estimate about 186,000 dead, 7.9% of the population. Conditions haven’t been improving in the couple months since that happened and it was a conservative estimate anyway, so I said 10%. The truth is there’s a lot of uncertainty, it could be higher or lower than that, but saying it’s 1.5% is definitely wrong.
It's not definitely wrong. It's the number of verified deaths. Speculation is speculation. Also 186,000 dead would be 4% of the population.
?
Is your impression that the Lancet just has someone speculate on things and then write down whatever, and that’s what they publish? Why would a professionally arrived at and peer reviewed estimate, based on the best available information and with an explanation of where it comes from, not be preferable to the absolute minimum lower bound?
Why is the number of “verified” deaths relevant? I’m interested in the number of deaths. It’s impossible to know that number for sure, of course, but if you are one of those people that died, but your death wasn’t verified, you’re still dead. Saying that the quite large number of people who died but whose death wasn’t verified “don’t count” or something is obvious nonsense.
And the Gaza Strip population was 2.23 million in 2023. 186000 / 2230000 = 8%. Where are you getting 4%?
That’s four specific questions I’m asking.
You and Lancet seem to use a "Gaza strip population" to inflate the number and make it look higher than it is. My number comes from the total population of Palestine people of both Gaza and West Bank.
The number of verified deaths should be relevant. It seems disrespectful not to. Every speculated death should be verified. I'm sure there is a way to verify.
It is possible for the Lancet to be biased in one way or another yes. It is possible sure. There have been credible orgs who have questioned this Lancet estimate.
Help me out here. If I start bombing Philadelphia, and I kill 10% of the city, is it relevant that Philadelphia is part of the United States and does that make the 10% number suddenly wrong?
You’re sure there is a way to verify, huh. Well hey, you should go to Gaza and help them verify. I am sure it would be easy once you’re down there, helping them dig out families or schoolrooms from under the rubble and count 1, 2, 3, okay we got 4 corpses in this one. They’re verified now so they count. Boy, only a few hundred thousand houses to go, should be done in no time. Hey guys where is the water fountain? I’m getting thirsty, and when is lunch coming?
I am mostly done; you don’t need to tell me how biased the Lancet is famous for being, or who are these unnamed orgs who are questioning its credibility.
What bills? What banks? What hospitals do you think are operating in Gaza right now? Who is digging up every destroyed house and carting away every corpse, to what functioning morgue?
There are 12 hospitals operating in Gaza right now. In what reality do you think they’re spending their resources on counting bodies already dead that someone transported there (for what to happen to them)?
Fuckin bills… yeah, they just fire up their home computers and pay the electric bill, and if they don’t, someone knows they’re dead. It’s all real straightforward.
I am done now
I don't think you should speculate so much.
You joke and speculate but the Gaza health ministry numbers have always been reliable.
Yes, they’re excellent under pretty grim conditions. However, they only count (and only attempt to count) directly verified deaths, which obviously is the lower bound on the deaths and not the actual number. The Lancet article explains this.
Didn’t we talk about this already? It seems like we did and now you’re pretending not to understand verified versus unverified deaths.
Me personally I'm going to stick with number of deaths as reported by the gaza government. Which has been proven over this past decade to have accurate numbers through multiple mass-casualty events.
Not conservative estimates or whatever crap the Lancet is trying to push.
You can do that, sure. I definitely have also observed the Gaza Health Ministry to be pretty on point (again under pretty grim conditions).
Idk man, maybe those people just didn’t pay their sewer bill. Hey, maybe that’s where the overcount of casualties came from! They forgot to pay the sewer bill online or at the banks that are all still functioning, and someone at The Lancet thought they were dead.
Can you believe 80% of Palestinians currently support the October 7th attack as well as support hamas even after all this shit? It's mind boggling how they had it all and here they are. They choose to do and support this crap.
Welp
Justifying atrocities against people because they want to take revenge on you for the other atrocities is… well, I mean, it’s not like un heard of I guess, it’s just weird to hear it spelled out so clearly like there’s nothing wrong with it.
Oh yeah, atrocities we committed on them. Supporting their exponential population growth. All the aid we send them. 60% of their population children? And growing.
Damn. We really committed atrocities toward them. How dare we send them billions and billions in aid. They fucked and fucked and partied so hard from such horrendous atrocities.
This ain't no Mudd Club or C.B.G.B., Mr. Byrne
Ohh no. Did they fail to raise an army and go to war?
Anyways let's debunk this crap. There was no Palestine in 1946 Palestine before 1946 was Arabs. The green in 1946 represents a million arabs living there and the white represents half a million Jews. Your map leaves out the British mandate land given to those Arabs of that time. That land known as Jordan today with 70% Arab Palestine descent.
Your last map is pure bullshit. Their population has swelled in numbers since 1946 from 100k population to 5 millions? Yet it portrays an ethnic cleansing? Riiiiiight.
Your 2nd map was the two state proposal offered in 1947 which the Arabs declined and proceeded to try and destroy Israel off the map in 1948.
Your third map is the consequences of them wanting to destroy Israel imo but whatever something something atrocities something something no partition plan no Israel.
You say that like the destruction of an ethnostate is a bad thing.
The destruction of Israel does not mean the destruction of Jews, Jews; Muslims, and Christians lived in Palestine under the ottoman empire, before Balfour decided to kill 2 birds with one stone, and both remove most Jews from Britain (the dude was very explicitly antisemitic) and acquire a colony.
There are like 20 Arab ethnostates. Israel isn't an ethnostate anyways. They have a large amount of citizens that are not Jewish. If they are then there are many many countries you may be inclined to destroy as well.
Seems like you got a lot of work to do cleansing this world of ethnostates. Good luck with it! /S
Is Israel a Jewish state or not?
Israel is no more of an ethnistate than many many countries.
Lancet is literally one of the most, if not the most, prestigious medical journal in the world.
If you don't believe the actual medical journal then you're lost. Plus Israel has bombed Gaza so much that they have destroyed all the hospitals and record keeping facilities. In addition, the US government passed a bill limiting publications from talking about the death toll. https://www.commondreams.org/news/genocide-denial-congress
On top of that, Israel has dropped a minimum of 300 bombs per day on Gaza since October 8th. If each bomb only killed one person, we would have a death toll of 300 per day x approximately 300 days is 90,000.
You seriously just joked about how they count the casualties. That's wicked work.
You do not seem to understand how peer review let alone scientific research works and what kind of rigor is required to get your research published in an A* journal and I’ll leave it at that.
When journalists and peer-review get a more accurate number of deaths than... The Gaza health ministry ran by the government of Gaza.
Okay.
I said it before. Why don't we just say 500 thousand dead why be so conservative? Why don't we even say it's a million dead!
Journalists publishing in the lancet and doing peer review? I rest my case.
Because that’s… not the estimate that the most accurate process they can come up with leads to?
This sorta reminds me of conversations I’ve had with Trump supporters, where the very idea that you could evaluate a source and one could be more believable than another for reasons other than ideology, (like that one is trying to get the truth and one isn’t), is alien to them.
I mean this person has absolutely no idea what they’re talking about if they think journalists publish in The Lancet just because it’s called a journal so I think any discussion is absolutely pointless.
Yes it is the estimate it lead to. They said they were being very conservative with that number and it could even be as much as 15x higher.
The Gaza health ministry has always been accurate in their numbers.
Yeah... and the health ministry has been unable to update their stuff due to being bombed out... do you even listen to yourself?
They literally released an updated death count today. 39,653 as of today.
What are you talking about "unable to update stuff due to being bombed out"? Literally. You make things up.
I don't understand why some people think that the death count is 40K. That number was made by the Palestinian health ministry and they are very accurate... but it wasn't updated because all their facilities have been destroyed. They act like somehow it stopped there just like that.
The lancet is not fucking around with their numbers.
The Palestine health ministry announces an updated death toll nearly everyday. What. Are. You. Talking. About.
The rate it increases is not as consistent with the rate of bombing because they're less able to retrieve and count bodies.
The % is irrelevant. Those are humans being killed. Many of them women and children.