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
No it doesn't. This is an emergency. It's a genocide.
And maybe let Palestinians decide whether or not they want to risk not having a right of return vs. dying rather than have Egypt decide it for them?
Would you argue that Native Americans shouldn't have been allowed sanctuary in some city during the Trail of Tears because if they accept sanctuary, they might not get their land back?
It is an emergency, but will the next one be on Egypt's border, or Gaza's is the question they seem to be asking.
Palestinians seem to have had no say up to this point, why change course now? I know why, but it's mighty inconvenient for any powers that be.
Finally, Your Trail of Tears analogy is really strained. As far as I know there was (and still is) no hope of tribes getting their land back, the tribes had a designated "indian territories" they were being relegated to. as opposed to the Palestinians who have the destination of "not here".
When has there ever been a refugee situation where the world accepted those refugees were fairly removed from their land and should give up hope of getting it back?
This is some sort of weird "finders keepers" playground rule that doesn't exist in the real world.
Would you stand on a border and refuse to let a child through because one day they might get their land back if they aren't murdered first? Does that really make sense to you?
The case of the Palestinians now pretty neatly fits into "give up the chance of ever getting back"
No, individuals having to watch this on the border have it rough and the entire situation is shit, but Cairo playing realpolitik on the matter of refugees is not something I can reasonably fault them for: they are elected to prioritize Egypt's interest, and allowing a group that may reasonably become a southern Hezbollah is in direct conflict with that mission.
Allowing mothers and children is the human thing to do, but with no actionable plan to return them, they become a liability with a fuse of some 16-20 years.
Now you're arguing that Egypt shouldn't have let them out because they would have no chance of getting back what they aren't going to get back anyway.
The fact that you think there should be a 'but' after that does not speak highly of you.
I'm arguing (and have been) that Egypt is looking out for Egypt only. Allowing Palestinian refugees introduces a possible liability for the Egyptian government to deal with down the line.
You're right. I'm a monster for allowing myself to try and rationalize the actions of a government instead of assuming all they do comes from a place of humanity.
Governments are not people, they do not act as such. At best they are corporations with the endgoal of "stay in power" instead of shareholder value.