163
Is Israel’s treatment of Palestinians a form of apartheid?
(www.latimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
163 points (87.9% liked)
World News
39367 readers
841 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I, for one, do think that the war against Hamas is justified. Israel's stated goal is to destroy Hamas military capabilities. The paradigm isn't tit-for-tat until they're "even". This isn't a slap contest. Israel's paradigm is overwhelming force to destroy the enemy as completely as possible, while also not completely nuking the civilian population. Hamas's paradigm is terrorism against primarily civilian targets, mainly to prevent Israel and the world from settling into complacency regarding the pre-October 7 state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Which is exactly what was happening before October 7.
No one knows when Israel will consider Hamas sufficiently degraded to end the war on their side. Of course, Hamas will never stop fighting Israel, even if there is a ceasefire. It'll just take another decade or so to build up their military capabilities again for another attack. Or, there may be a Third Intifadah and a return to suicide bombing and similar tactics. It's a mess (and always has been).
How much of the population is acceptable as collateral damage? We're over 1%. Will you condemn Israel at 5%? 10%? 50%? 100%?
Murdering 1% of any countries civilians as collateral damage could never be justified.
No collateral damage is acceptable, but it is unrealistic to think that there will be no collateral damage in war. It is also unrealistic to think that Israel would not respond to the October 7 massacre, and unacceptable for Hamas to use the Palestinian people as human shields to avoid retaliation.
What does that boil down to? Israel has every right to strike back at Hamas. Hamas also has every right to fight against Israel. Because of the way Hamas has dug in to the civilian population and infrastructure, civilian casualties are a given. The number of civilian casualties is a function of two things:
In other words, both Israel and Hamas are to blame for civilian casualties. This is the same in every war. Civilians in a war zone always get fucked, no matter who started the war.
You said that Israel is justified in their war on Palestine. If no amount of collateral damage is acceptable, they would be no longer justified after the first civilians were killed, so you obviously do consider some amount of collateral damage as acceptable.
So I'll repeat my question: what is the percentage of the Palestine civilian population that has to be killed before Israel is no longer justified in their war? You can answer the question, or you can not do so. The implications of either option are hopefully clear to you.
My point is that no civilian should be killed, but that isn't realistic nor is it the criteria for engaging in warfare. What percentage of civilian casualties is "enough" is not a precisely answerable question. The best you can say is, "as few as reasonably possible given the circumstances". No war has zero collateral damage, but that doesn't mean that war is never justified.
In your earlier comment, you said that reaching 1% of the population killed could never be justified. And yet, about 9% of German were killed in WW2, and yet few would argue that the Allies should have stopped fighting once German casualties reached 1% of the population.