News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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
Alright since you and a handful of other people didn't pick up that I wasn't actually serious about murdering 10m people imma respond.
This is an exceedingly complex issue that clearly can't be solved by any of us on the internet. It was a problem started by a lot of people who are long dead. By the time I was born the whole shit show had gotten to pretty much this exact same spot.
I don't know why the US has supported Israels actions for the past 80 years. I don't know why they continued in the past 30 among anything. I do know that there is a lot of economic interest and military benefits in keeping Israel right where it is.
One problem is Israel has Netanyahou and other than Israeli's we can't do shit about that. Hezbollah is a proxy by which Iran can war with Israel. Another Problem is Iran doesn't have the military strength to be a concern to most Western countries, but it can fuck with the whole region and fuck it's own people quite well and happily does.
If the US stopped giving weapons to Israel (which I assume Israel isn't actually paying for) then Israel would be forced to manufacture its own weapons internally or find some way to generate the money to buy the weapons (probably through taxes). Both of which will force Israel into a position where stupid military strikes become unpopular because of the cost to the citizens.
But from what I understand the US won't stop giving the weapons because of the strategic importance of Israel, and protecting quite a few big companies that set up shop there. Compound that with the strange notion that the religious right has about Israel being some sort of Land for Jews at all costs.
Once you bring religion into the picture the clusterfuck being a domestic nightmare, an international nightmare, and a humanitarian nightmare.
Based on what I know, the logical choice is that the US witholds weapons. But the US didn't. Logic keeps getting thrown out. It quickly becomes an emotional issue that no one can work together on as you and a whole bunch of other people have made a great example.
Fairness would be glassing - think along the lines of Thanos in Infinity War. It doesn't actually solve anything, it just resets the entire geographic area to no longer be an issue.
Justice would be completely different. There will be no justice, because all the factions disagree on what that would be.
You said way more this time but still ended it with killing 10 million people and permanently destroying their homeland is "fair".
Two women approach the king. One woman claims the other kidnapped her baby. The other claims the baby is hers. The king says fine, he'll cut the baby in half for both of them out of fairness.
The woman with the baby sees this as technically fair.
Horrified, the woman says the other woman can keep the baby to ensure it survives.
In the rest of the parable the king gives the horrified women the baby as that is the expected response of a mother.
I am offering a fair solution. I'm not offering a realistic or sustainable solution. I have yet to hear from any faction (other that the Israeli led genocide) a detailed solution to ensuring a good outcome. This falls on the US too. The US has the capability of the King - the West as a whole can enforce it until the region can enforce it themselves.
And I have yet to hear what you consider fair.
Oh you mean the glass the West thing.
I guess I didn't even think of that as being a solution to the Israel problem because it just removes countries with their shit together. And the only real country that could glass the West is probably China given that Russia threatening nuclear consequences so often has clearly painted them as not having any that function.
If China did that, it wouldn't really be fair to the Chinese due to the massive amounts of IP and funds they rely on external to their country. Not to mention all the other companies that depend on globalization.
I mean if you think shits bad now wait until it's just countries where there is absolutely no voting, no education, and it's run by cults. I don't think that's very fair. Plus, you're talking billions of lives of one side of an issue rather than 10 million equally distributed between sides.
Getting people out of the way is precisely the problem. Netanyahou wants his opposition out of the way. To do that he intends to distract by getting Palestinians out of the way. Iran has some connection to that I don't understand still so they fund Hezbollah to get the IDF out of the way, which then Israel wants to get Lebanon out of the way to get to Hezbollah out of the way. At which point it becomes Iran and Israel trying to get eachother out of the way. If total nuclear annihilation was your solution, that seems far more fair than just the West.
You're hardly speaking, you're just saying I'm evil for offering up a terrible yet balanced solution.
And if you're not going to read my arguments I can tell you don't actually have anything to gain or lose in this conversation, you're merely here to stroke fire.
Maybe that's what I'm doin? Maybe I'm trying to infuriate you? Or maybe I'm trying to get your mind to stop being so emotional about this and realize that feelings are going to get in the way the whole time. Deescalating any of this requires calm.
And my solution would certainly calm things down there. Maybe not from Iranian allies or Israel allies, but in the area they would be.
Trying to legitimize? I want you to come up with a better solution that involves less death since that seems to have set you off.
The personal attacks are a bit odd. Unwell and a nobody?
If that were truly the case, I assume you wouldn't have continued this conversation. You see some benefit in continuing to engage.
Or, you have a personal policy to always have the last say. Which means we could go on forever, and personally, that might be fun to try.
To be fair your solution has to be among the top for most deaths, at least in the short term. And you can only justify it by precluding any long term solution thats less violent. I just don't agree with the assumption everything less violent has been tried and failed. Its a lack of creativity maybe, or you've lost faith that most people have positive motivations.
There has been a distinct historical lack of potential solutions being tried. Because of that we have the modern day shit show where no one is willing to try to come up with potential solutions.
The first and most vital component is to remove Netanyahou and zionists from power. Only Israel can do that. (Through non violent means).
Without that all the evidence shows that violence will contribute.
The reason nothing works is because to negotiate with someone you have to have something they want. Israel doesnt want anything, and won't negotiate.
Normally when diplomacy fails to this degree, violence is the only remaining solution, but then the western nations supporting israel, help them fight off any attack and then punish any nation who dared to try.
So even the last step of violence fails. The west needs to fuck off from Israel and let them fight their own wars. They wouldnt swing their dick around the way they do without America's wallet in their pocket. That's fuck you kind of money.
I don't disagree with that. I learned about this conflict in like 2012-2013. Never heard of it being a problem first.
$3b/year at the time in arms to Israel, and the U.S. received nothing. Well I thought so at the time. The problem is that some big intelligence assets are there - ballistic missile detection and interception systems. The US essentially is using Israel as an area to guard international anti-nuclear weapon facilities in one of the already fairly unstable regions in the world.
The US faces a choice. Stop sending the arms and risk losing that technology, or continue to send them and risk Israel belligerently killing its neighbors.
Given that the Eastern part of the world still holds hostility towards the West simply because we have a view that people are allowed to dissent from their governments and that they are presumably nuclear armed, the US will never let that technology go, unless it is replaced with something better.
We already have military bases in a bunch of middle east countries. Its harder to find a country there that wont facilitate the US military. Saudi Arabia is one of Americas strongest partners there as well.
The reason america keeps supporting israel is because when politicians go against AIPAC they usually pay for it with their political seats. They punish anyone who tries to go against them. They recently forced out Corey Bush for example.
Its getting very close to the point where supporting israel will actually lose you your seat as well, so there will be a tipping point where politicians aren't afraid of AIPAC anymore.