A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
"The only democracy in the Middle-East"
No, no it isn't. It hasn't been even a flawed democracy for at least a decade, let alone ever for the people of Palestine.
Its a fascist shithole who's leadership figured out can stay in power forever if they start a new war.
This raises the question: which Middle Eastern country IS the most democratic?
Yeah, apartheid states aren't democracies.
By all means, a mischievous terrorist state
I wouldn't call genocide mischievous. Not be a dick but my grandmother escaped Europe during WW2 and explained some of her trauma. Try to never lessen the atrocities, it makes people think it's normative
Fascists gonna fash.
The zionists are even traitors to themselves. Why abide by the rules of your supreme court if you shit on all the rules every day?
Because “secretly” they shit on the concept of democracy, laws and courts. They want a military theocracy.
Just like Iran. Just like the US.
without the USA backing bennys illegitmate government, he and his cabinet would be in jail right now.
As an American, this sounds familiar.
For those who tried to read 50 billion likely-AI words before getting to what this is actually about.
The court froze government decisions from March 24 and March 31 that dealt with appointing a new council to the Second Authority. The practical meaning was that the outgoing council would remain in place in its current composition and would not be replaced for now.
In their decision, the justices pointed to what they called a “puzzling proximity in time” between the resignations of several council members, requests by the communications minister and earlier High Court decisions. They also noted that most of the members who resigned from the current council asked to continue serving on the new one.
The court wrote that, on its face, this conduct did not align with council members’ duty of loyalty under the Second Authority Law. It therefore took the unusual step of ruling that the members who resigned would not, at this stage, be counted for purposes of determining the current council’s quorum.
The justices said the decision was necessary under “unique and exceptional circumstances” to prevent what they described as a deliberate attempt to obstruct and paralyze the council’s work during the interim order.
So the court thinks there is corruption due to the resignations, and calls for a hold. The gov says they were following the law so it's fine.
Human, summarize this AI article for me.
For those who tried to read 50 billion likely-AI words before getting to what this is actually about.
I’m not sure why you would say that.
It’s ~1,500 words, a 5 minute read. The style is like any other news article that isn’t an opinion column, and I don’t see any “LLM speak.”
Israel doesn't have a constitution.
It doesn't have a "document constitution" it has a political constitution that is based upon precedence. That precedence being set by the high court.
So when the High Court decided that self determination in Israel is reserved only for the Jewish population, thereby enshrining the right to settler colonialism and they've enshrined apartheid into their Political Constitution.
There are other ways to talk about this. We don't have to torture these words into pretending to be something they are not.
High court precedents are not the the same thing as a constitution because they are not above all branches of government. They are of one branch.
You’re doing the “torture” here. A constitution is a set of rules or precedents which establish the legal basis for a state. It can be a set of rules in a document like the French constitution, or it can be the sum total of legal precedent and convention like the British constitution. Historically, most constitutions have been the latter.
You're applying a USA understanding of government to a completely different government structure because you want there to be an actual document called "The Constitution".
But that's not the case here. Either way, we can also take your point further, because a "Constitutional Crisis" can also apply to different branches of government getting into institutional conflict with each other. Since, as we know, legalese likes to use Latin etymology.
The word "constitution" comes from Latin "constitutio," meaning a regulation or order, via Old French "constitucion," and originally referred to laws or customs established by authority. It entered English in the 14th century with meanings including laws, physical makeup, and the structure of a state.
Either way, it's still a Constitutional Crisis and very valid terminology to use.
So they're actually only a little better than a religious theocracy like Iran. Different processes and paths but similar results.
That's a very layered statement to respond to and depends on personal weighted values that I can't adequately answer.
Not in the defense of Iran's theocracy because there's no defending it and they openly say that they're a theocracy, but more about perspective:
Israel claims to be secular and equal, yet -
So it's hard to determine if it's a little bit better. Some might argue it's worse.
Nonetheless, it's essentially a theocracy. Iran vs Israel is allegorically like Abel and Cain, sharing the same root source but with enough differences to want to kill each other.
I think framing it in religious terms is a bit too dismissive and lacking in depth. It's the exact framing that Israel has perpetuated on purpose so western audiences could be dismissive or find it too complicated to care about.
Israel's founders didn't sit down one day and come up with a new form of non-constitutional democracy.
They convened an assembly back in 1949 to draft the constitution; and that assembly simply failed to do so. The plan was to establish the Knesset (parliament), and kick the can of writing a constitution to them. The Knesset also never finished the job, instead passing a patchwork set of basic laws. It wasn't until 1995, that their Supreme Court unilaterally asserted that basic laws formed a quasi constitution (a position that they did not start entertaining until the early 90s).
It is true that Israel is not the only country that has stumbled into this system. However, it is a small club. Within that club, what sets Israel apart is how young it is. This is not merely a historical curiosity yet. The tensions that prevented them from forming a constitution in the first place are still alive and well. And, they do not have the generations of precedent needed to provide the clarity that a real constitution can.