• lol_idk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is not political humor, it’s not funny, it’s reposted here to cause arguments and nothing else. Not very nuanced at all.

  • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have a question. I am partly ethnically Jewish and have not educated myself on this conflict. I haven’t done that because I figured I am too biased to form an option on this, despite not feeling particularly Jewish. I am also very concerned and fearful about Islam because of their views on LGBT people and notice that when Islam spreads, even in mild or moderate form, often it results in a certain percentage becoming radicalized, thereby harming LGBT people. There are zero Muslim dominant countries that are nice to LGBT people. That being said, by doing nothing, am I condoning genocide? I could donate to an organization that is non-political like donating food to the people in Palestine who are supposedly starving through an organization. I’ve done nothing and have been somewhat purposefully ignorant of the facts because I know they are all so awful, and I am often dealing with depression anyway. I’m also not doing well financially so whatever I do and think may not matter. Is there a way to become educated on this topic with unbiased facts that aren’t influenced by religious ideas? How many Palestinian people are facing genocide and is this hyperbole? Am I the same as the people who just ignored the Holocaust in World War II? I also know the Palestinian elected Hamas which wanted to destroy Israel completely, which provides a safe sanctuary to Jewish people, and that the Jewish people made it hard for Palestinians to have many freedoms through oppression or harsh regulation even before the attack that happened when Palestinian terrorists/warlords/protestors killed a lot of people including children. I don’t have an opinion on things and am worried my ignorance is evil. I feel like this meme is partly about people like me and perhaps it should change me.

    • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hey man, you’re asking the right questions. There’s not really anything you can do except be willing to say what Israel is doing is wrong. Calling your representative in Congress is free, and the more they hear from us the more they’ll pay attention.

      On a personal note, a lot of this would be good stuff to bring to therapy, especially if you struggle with depression. Just if you don’t already have one, I’d highly recommend speaking to one to work through some of these big important questions you’re having.

      • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t know if what they are doing is wrong. I am incredibly ignorant about this topic, and even after reading the posts in the thread, a lot of the information is contradictory and seems mutually exclusive in some ways. In other words, someone is providing an incorrect perspective or incorrect information and it’s not as though both perspectives somehow can coexist logically. My gut feels like Palestinians are probably been treated in an unethical way, but I still feel ignorant of everything.

        I also don’t really understand what Israel should be doing instead. What do protester’s claim Israel should be doing differently?

        I don’t believe in therapy.

    • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I haven’t done that because I figured I am too biased to form an option on this

      Some of the most impactful voices against this genocide are Jewish.

      That being said, by doing nothing, am I condoning genocide?

      Yes. Genocide is genocide, irrespective of who it is aimed at or what else they did.

      I could donate to an organization that is non-political like donating food to the people in Palestine who are supposedly starving through an organization … I’m also not doing well financially so whatever I do and think may not matter. … Am I the same as the people who just ignored the Holocaust in World War II?

      If you can afford to, then by all means donate. If you can’t, that’s fine. You are not responsible for things beyond your control. What you can do is try to learn more about the history of this conflict, and be honest with yourself. Again, you have limited time and resources, so no one is asking you to research every atrocity going on in the world.

      How many Palestinian people are facing genocide and is this hyperbole?

      Palestine is now divided into two pieces - the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Those living on the Gaza strip are now facing genocide.

      Israel … provides a safe sanctuary to Jewish people

      To some Jewish people. Palestinian and African Jews face discrimination from white Jews.

      The Jewish people made it hard for Palestinians to have many freedoms through oppression or harsh regulation even before the attack that happened.

      The Israeli government did this. Many Israelis opposed and even protested this.

      I feel like this meme is partly about people like me and perhaps it should change me.

      I think it is more about hypocritical politicians and ‘reporters’. It is great that you want to learn more. Be warned though - some of the things being done in Gaza are very fucked up.

  • Agora@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Islamists calling for a genocide for Israel are idiots. And so are the demonstrations.

    It’s extremely sad, that Palestinians are dying and suffer so much. There should be more humanitarian aid and the war should stop. But calling to arms and supporting hamas is a no-go for me.

    You cannot justify actions to others, just by acting like they did. It’s logical nonsense, you are basically like what you hate then.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Complex, maybe?

    Two sides? Sure. There are the people getting killed by genocide, and the side committing genocide.

    So they might be half right?

    • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hamas supports genocide against Jews. I think that’s the essence of the complexity, both sides of the conflict seek the eradication of the other. If we removed all weapons and defenses from Israel it wouldn’t be enough to stop the bloodshed, it would just change which people were dying. The first step to a lasting peace is to end the genocide in Gaza, but it will take many more steps to reach the goal.

      • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Hamas supports genocide against Jews

        They have continuously denied these claims. What you are referencing was their manifesto when they were a fringe group that most Palestinians opposed. Hamas has long withdrawn that document

        • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Was the 2017 revision fully ratified? Even the revised charter seeks the destruction of Israel. To me it seems obvious that religion underscores the conflict, but even viewed as a territorial dispute, it’s clear that lasting peace is a challenging puzzle.

          • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            The destruction of the settler colonial and genocidal state where racism and treating Palestinians as second class citizens is part of its foundation is a good thing, and must not be mistaken for “the destruction of jews”. The charter explains this disambiguation.

            • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Do you not see how that complicates the conflict? It’s not as simple as Israel ending the genocide to stop the violence, they would need to cease to exist.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Look, the point is that you can’t believe the thousands of videos of Israel geocoding people. And you can’t believe the dozens (or more) videos of them saying it on their local television talkshows. It’s simply too complicated, you fucking nitwits. Now tow the party line; we have a genocide to help them complete.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      FYI, it’s “toe” the line, as in you put your toe on the line when you fall in order. It’s a nautical term, since crews would line up on specific boards on the deck of a ship.

  • Miaou@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I get and agree with the spirit but “western liberals” doesn’t mean anything

    • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      A liberal is someone who:

      1. Upholds the modern nation state and is thus against monarchy (against whom the first liberals rebelled against)
      2. Upholds capitalism and market economies, and with it property rights
      3. Upholds electoral parliamentary systems of governance
      4. Usually believes in some version of the social contract or similar theory from which the legitimacy of the nation state and capitalism is derived.

      Anyone from the left complaining about liberals is using this definition of liberals (typically). The basic reasoning for using this definition if liberal is that it has always been the definition of liberal and has only changed recently in some parts of the world. It is also not necessary to change the definition because the “progressive liberals” also mostly fit the old definition either way. Pretty much every serious socialist political theory will start with a criticism of the philosophy of liberalism.

    • kaffiene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I hear Americans use the term liberal all the time but the way they use it makes me think we’re talkibg about different things

      • ADTJ@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It is very confusing. There’s socially liberal, which is what Americans are usually referring to which is generally progressive, more freedoms for people etc.

        The other liberal is Liberalism which is largely about being in favour of private property, private companies etc. and a free market, which tends to (but not always) correlate with being socially conservative.

        Here in the UK, one of the big parties is the Liberal Democrats, which is a pro-Liberalism centre-right wing party, but because of the name a lot of people confuse them for progressives.

    • daellat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The conflict in terms comes from what in Europe mostly describes the social axes. Social liberalism is very different from what in America usually refers to economically neo-liberals who are basically late stage capitalists

      • Miaou@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s the opposite you mean, in Europe liberal and neoliberal are basically synonyme, while in the US the libs are the people dying their hair in pink

        • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          In the US people usually use neoliberal and liberal interchangeably. I’m sure some of them are dying their hair pink, not sure what that has to do with anything though.

          • Miaou@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I’ve always read the “libs” used as synonyme for “dems” and “woke” but OK

            • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Oh, yes, magas lump everyone who isn’t an insane right-wing nut job into the same category, and they call them all “libs” or “libtards”

      • Miaou@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        See, based on what you mean by liberal, I don’t know whether that means “the current potus is a dem” or “of course because everyone is a liberal there”

        • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          everyone is a liberal there

          Do you mean everyone in the US is a liberal? No I don’t believe that nor did I imply it. I only mentioned the president.

          • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            From further up the thread

            A liberal is someone who:

            • Upholds the modern nation state and is thus against monarchy (against whom the first liberals rebelled against)
            • Upholds capitalism and market economies, and with it property rights
            • Upholds electoral parliamentary systems of governance
            • Usually believes in some version of the social contract or similar theory from which the legitimacy of the nation state and capitalism is derived.

            This describes the bulk of the Democrat and Republican parties. US politics doesn’t have a left-wing as it is understood in the rest of the world, our center is between two right-wing ideologies.

  • tweeks@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group… - UN definition

    Consensus on the matter seems complex and I’m not an expert, but what I believe is the issue is the exact definition. The grey area lies with the intent of Israel, as they state they are aiming at Hamas military targets while actually having (bizarre levels of) collateral damage.

    But by this definition, one could mass murder any number of people at all times, as long as they have not spoken out their intent to do so. It’s just word play at that point.

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    i mean, yeah it is complex. It’s fucking war.

    War isn’t simple. Let alone war with history, and multiple decades, coming up to a century worth of history soon.

    This war is the kindergarten equivalent of “no i said it first”

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                my original comment? Didn’t even once mention genocide.

                Just talked about the fact that there’s an ongoing war, which is very much true. I don’t think there’s any global entity that hasn’t classified this as a war. Even germany was committing war during their little escapade.

                Do i think that israel is committing genocide? Idk, it depends on the definition of genocide on whether or not that actually holds up the local population at hand, because i know very little about the demographics of the middle east, weird how that one works.

                Do you think war IS genocide, and that genocide is not war? Because that would be a weird way to phrase things. I don’t think you can classify war itself as genocide, based on the very act of war itself, being fundamentally irrelevant most of the time, and the times it has been relevant, it’s only tangentially relevant.

    • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It being a war doesn’t negate the simple conclusion that it is a genocide. If you have reason to deny that, you should provide proper reasoning rather than the hand wavy “it’s a war, surely it has to be complex!”. There are complex aspects to a war that do not negate the simplicity of classifying it as a genocide. The conclusion is simple due to the mountains of undeniable evidence.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It being a war doesn’t negate the simple conclusion that it is a genocide.

        not inherently, but it being a genocide doesn’t also automatically include the whole of the war.

        Ever notice how literature on the holocaust mostly talks about the fact that the germans murdered like what? 13 million people, i couldn’t tell you off the top of my head, rather than how germany uses military tactics to their advantage. And fails at them.

        Also contextually, genocide should be used in past tense. You think the jews under nazi regime were bitching about the mass homicide? Nah they were busy getting the fuck out of germany so they weren’t fucking murdered.

        Ironically, it’s a pretty fucking first world problem to be able to sit here and complain and cry about genocide that isn’t even happening to you. But presumably happening to another party, whom we’ve deemed the recipient of it, presumably ignoring the entire history of this conflict so far. As well as the fact that it’s hard to determine any real numbers on this, considering it’s literally a war.

        Why aren’t people complaining about russia genociding their soliders? They’re doing the same fucking thing! This is arguably worse than israel palestine right now because these are the countries own fucking people.

        The reason i said “its a war, it’s complex” is because i’d literally be here for 3 fucking hours, typing until i hit the world limit multiple fucking times just to iterate my point once. Forgive me if i’m being a little brief here.

        Like don’t get me wrong, i get it, i’m not a huge fan of the fact that we’re sending material to an ally who is using it effectively murder without consequence. Only to be brushed off by our leadership, i would think complaining about the fact that we’re doing this shit, rather than the fact that what we’re doing is enabling another independent entity to murder thousands of people every day, or whatever the stat is.

        This is like being a friend of someone who’s experiencing an abusive relationship, and instead of telling them directly, you bitch at their abusive partner directly, expecting that to make them treat your friend better? Somehow?

        There are complex aspects to a war that do not negate the simplicity of classifying it as a genocide. The conclusion is simple due to the mountains of undeniable evidence.

        also linguistically, you literally cannot classify a war as a genocide. That’s not fucking possible, this is like classifying a car as a boat. A war can include genocide, as demonstrated ever so lovingly by the germans during that one world war. They are two distinct parts of a collective whole here.

        • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Why aren’t people complaining about russia genociding their soliders?

          Barely down the comments section and I already see Russia lmao.

          This is like being a friend of someone who’s experiencing an abusive relationship, and instead of telling them directly, you removed at their abusive partner directly, expecting that to make them treat your friend better? Somehow?

          The fuck else do think everyone hating on and protesting in college campuses and against Biden is doing? Also, he is not my friend or your friend. And he is in no abusive relationship. This is 2 serial killers hanging out and giving each other assistance. You can’t kill either one as they are well protected, but you can slash their tires.

          also linguistically, you literally cannot classify a war as a genocide. That’s not fucking possible, this is like classifying a car as a boat. A war can include genocide, as demonstrated ever so lovingly by the germans during that one world war. They are two distinct parts of a collective whole here.

          Ah metaphysics, my old friend. War is not a static, isotropic constant that remains unchanged throughout the universe like a water molecule or the speed of light. The nature of the war itself fundamentally changes depending on the millions of factors that give it context, amongst them, genocide being a big one.

      • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        What gets me is people who throw a fit when you point Hamas isn’t exactly awesome, even if they are fighting for very justified reasons

        • bigschnitz@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          They are literally fighting for the extermination of the Jewish state and aim to eradicate the Jewish population from the region.

          The Islamic colonial powers have a long history of persecuting the Jewish population in the region which was (and should Hamas be successful, again will be) every but as despicable as what Israel are doing to the Palestinians now.

          In this conflict, the only possible justice is for both sides to lose and a two state solution be implemented.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          as far as i can tell, from the history i’ve seen, neither side is particularly justified IMO. Including the lengthy history of documented treaty negotiations as well.

    • Ozone6363@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Wait, you mean the conflict can’t be broken down into one simple tweet from some random woman?

      • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The tweet does not claim to summarize the entire conflict, but only promote the undeniable fact that it is a genocide.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          again, a war cannot in it of itself be genocide, a war however can perpetrate genocide.

          Much like a car can perpetrate transportation, but in it of itself is not literally transportation.

          • hglman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Amazing, you stopped genocide with semantics. Truly inspiring feat.

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              i didn’t stop it. Do you actually have 3 braincells?

              A war can happen independently but at the same time as a genocide, and you can have a genocide without a war, the two are not intrinsically related.

              By this argument i’ve completely destroyed the transportation industry, because there is no more fucking transportation.

          • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            You do not have to say it “again”. I ignored it the first time because there’s no logical reasoning or evidence for this. Until you do, it’s not something that I can respond to.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        you mean to tell me the conflict that started officially in the year 1948 has nearly 70 years of history up to now, and has many involved parties, all of whom reside in the middle east, which is notorious for calm conflict resolution?

  • HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean, it is a complex issue, and there are two sides of it. One of the sides is doing a genocide. The other side makes attacks when they can, killing much smaller numbers. If suddenly the power balance switched, I’m not convinced Hamas wouldn’t go for doing a genocide.

    What actually matters here is that nobody should be doing genocides, both sides have reason to say, “they started it!”, and it’s not going to end until both sides can accept that yes, shit happened, bad things were intentionally done by people, and everyone needs to move on, or there will be another round, and another, and another, and another…

    • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hamas would definitely flip the script and start ‘genocidin, that’s the express goal of the organization, in their own words. The complete destruction of the Israeli state, through any means necessary.

      I honestly don’t even disagree with that goal, Israel should never have existed in its current capacity in the first place. But I can’t pretend that one theofascist state is better than another.

        • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          See it’s this kind of reply that tells me you don’t know fucking anything about Hamas. If you haven’t read any of the Hamas covenant, please do so before displaying any more ignorance.

          Israel as a state should be dissolved and land returned to Palestinians, but Hamas is not sunshine and rainbows

          I’ve included the highlight reel below.

          “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” (Preamble)

          The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." (Article 7)

          “The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews’ usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.” (Article 15)

          “Ranks will close, fighters joining other fighters, and masses everywhere in the Islamic world will come forward in response to the call of duty, loudly proclaiming: ‘Hail to Jihad!’. This cry will reach the heavens and will go on being resounded until liberation is achieved, the invaders vanquished and Allah’s victory comes about.” (Article 33)

            • MonkRome@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Do you think when the kkk revises their language to be all dog whistles instead of outright saying what they mean that this changes their goals?

              Israel are the baddies right now, but if Hamas had the power Israel has they would be commiting genocide. The key is Israel has the power and they are killing people. It’s okay to focus on the current wrong without lying about a subset of the current victims…

                • MonkRome@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  If I was part of the kkk but realized I believed nothing the kkk believed in, would I stick around? Pretending that just because they improved their public relations means that their organization radically changed their beliefs is magical thinking. I don’t believe in magic.

                  Hamas still openly believes that all of the Middle East is for Muslims only, that all of it should be under control of Sunni Muslim fundamentalist control, and that no non Muslims should even live in the Middle East. How do you think they believe they will get to that point?

                  Again, Israel is entirely responsible for their actions, but pretending that Hamas are just regular old freedom fighters is entirely a lie. The victims here are the civilians, there are far too many victims. But I don’t look at the religious fundamentalist bigots and see victims, they are part of the problem. All be it without the power to enact their hate fully.

  • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Yasmine said that?!? This changes everything. I don’t form opinions until it’s in a tweet and reposted somewhere else.

    The most important part is the argument must have a punch line. I can’t do anything until I hear the punch line.

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    “We understand this is a hard one to swallow, but the Mossad handlers AIPAC lobbyists told us that the Palestinians all spontaneously killed themselves after blowing up their homes. On the one hand, that’s obviously bullshit. But on the other, they give us SO MUCH MONEY.”