If we care about human rights we should be stopping the bombings. People keep treating this like an earthquake or a hurricane or something.
true, the attacks against the palestines should stop immediately. But the attacks from gaza and the surrounding areas should also stop. Its not like Israel has lived in peace for the past 20 years.
Its not like Israel has lived in peace for the past 20 years.
Israel created its current situation. No kidding they actively funded Hamas (and, more commonly, allowed foreign money to reach them) and intentionally created conditions where nobody but them could govern, all so they don't have to bother with peace. Hell, Israel signed two ceasefires in the past, one in 2008 and one in 2012. Well Israel didn't follow those ceasefires so nothing came out of them. Then in the great march of return, Gazans once again tried peaceful solutions (which had already failed thrice), and their reward was getting shot by IDF snipers.
Just what are they supposed to do?
Israel created its current situation
Kinda, in terms of current policies and actions, but in terms of root causes? It’s not fair to put ALL the blame on the Israelis, because the evolution of the area in the last 70 or so years is VERY MUCH a legacy of colonialism.
Remember: this all started back after the end of WW2, a mere handful of years after the Holocaust concluded, when the UK the time owned the area that is now Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. The UK and the UN (with the notable exception of the then Arab League countries) decided to partition the area, giving much of it to the Jewish people, while relocating Arabs to other areas (I am hand-waving a lot here); this became Israel and Palestine respectively.
The Arab League didn’t appreciate that colonial overlords were unilaterally redistributing land they had historical claim on to another group that had historical claim (understandable, if nuanced), and so they decided to immediately attack the fledgling state of Israel literally the day it was established in an attempt to, in their own words, “sweep them into the sea” (not cool). For those in the back: the surrounding Arab countries and the Arab league, (justifiably) upset at having their land unilaterally reapportioned, decided the best move was to effectively try to conduct another genocide on the now-Israelis (not cool), and the Israelis (understandably) took exception to that. This is known as the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
Thus, the initial unilateral reapportionment of the land, and the wildly violent reaction of the surrounding Arab countries set the tone for regional interactions for the foreseeable future.
As I mentioned above, there is a LOT of detail I’m glossing over, but those are more or less the core points of the situation.
Edit: and the comment under this adds some additional important context that you should also read. There’s a TON of nuance to this situation. People can, have, and will continue for the foreseeable future to write doctoral theses on this conflict. You are not going to get a truly comprehensive analysis of the situation from a social media platform.
The first Zionist congress was held in 1897 in Switzerland and after the first Alihya, which was a migration wave politically coopted by the Zionists. They just took advantage of the Mandatory Palestine situation created by the British and the US in 1922 and severely aggravated by WWII. Their plans considered several alternatives for the state of Israel that even considered Uganda, also under British rule at the time.
The whole characterization you made of the first Arab-Israeli war is a bit off. There were intense terrorists campaigns by Israel paramilitary years before the war broke out. Killing both British and Palestine civilians with fervor. The detonator was the idiocy of UN resolution 181 where a drunken cartographer drew lines separating the Palestine and Israeli states, which the General Assembly approved without consulting, you know, the people living there.
I am hand waving a lot here
That aside: for what it’s worth, thank you for adding additional context. More people need to understand more details and historical background of the situation. The vast majority of people who seem to have strong opinions on the matter appear to have a shaky understanding of the historical context at best.
That's rich considering how few Gazans Egypt has taken in over the years. Europe doesn't want them, true, but neither does the Arab world. Palestinians have always been at the bottom of the strata.
There's a reason that Egypt will not take them in and I understand and respect that. No hard feelings there.
"Hey stop bombing Gaza, they are not all terrorists!"
"Giving civilians refuge? But they are all terrorists!"
The duality of Palestine.
The reason is that they're assholes. They claim that they can't do it because there's no assurance of return and because they're worried about Hamas. Sorry, those are not reasons to ignore a humanitarian crisis at your border.
What would happen if Hamas started launching attacks against Israel from Egyptian soil?
Then Egypt needs to eliminate the threat of Hamas in their country.
Oh - that's not possible without collateral damage since the absolute love using civilians as human shields? Better not take them in and let Israel take the blame...
I'd hope Egypt would then work together with Israel on disarming Hamas on Egyptian soil.
Are you saying they shouldn't take in refugees just in case Hamas attacks from Egypt because it might result in an Israeli response? Because you could make that same argument about Ukrainians fleeing to Poland. They might secretly be backing Russia. What if they launch attacks against Ukraine from Polish soil?
EDIT: I'm sorry, you can downvote me all you like, but this is a bullshit excuse to stop taking in people who are facing a genocide. Egypt sees a genocide happening on their border and, instead of letting refugees in, they say, "why can't Europe take care of it?" I'm sorry, it's bullshit. They're complicit in this genocide. They aren't the cause- the cause is Israel- but they're complicit. They're letting Gazans die.
Forced displacement of a people *is a war crime" and given the Nakba it's not such a bad idea to not give this to Israel. We've played this game before in 1948 and did any refugee from that era get to ever return home? Nope.
Okay, then what should Gazans do, stay put and die? Because unless they're either staying put or somehow getting into Israel, Egypt sounds like their only option. Except Egypt won't allow it.
So Egypt can't take them because it would allow Israel to commit a war crime by displacing them, but Egypt thinks Europe should take them
Is this the same Egypt who vocally supported Hamas for the last 16 years? Maybe they can take 1M.refugees too.
Refugees are a financial and societal strain on any country taking them. That is not to say that no one should take in refugees at all. We as humans should take care of other people running away from death. At the same time I can definitely see why a developing country like Egypt isn't willing to take any refugees due to the immense implications that comes with.
Having said that, what I find very interesting as a European is that we, and our allies are poruing money and weapons into Israel, weapons which they use to carpet bomb and level Gaza to the ground, leaving over a MILLION people without homes in an already empoverished country where 70% of the population are refugees. Why aren't we as Europeans saying anything to our "allies" over the pond pouring weapons into Israel? At the end of the day, if Israel continues with this campaign of ethnic cleansing these people will have to run somewhere, and some of them will end up here.
Because international law is enforced to help powerful counties.
Or maybe Europe could pressure Israel to stop bombing civilians and carrying out ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
oh boy refugees are the achilles tendon of our current europe. This topic brings all the people in the arms of the far right political parties.
Bibi's government would love more far-right allies in Europe instead of disgusting 'centrist' and 'center-left' governments that might actually say a few words against genocide.
I wish the cowardly aliens would come back and finish us off like they tried to in 1908
They say they're quoting the financial times. But I can't find this article, or this quote on the financial times
https://www.ft.com/search?sort=date&q=%22you+want+us+to+take+one+million+people%22
Does anyone have a link to the original source?
As a Turk, I find them right. If you support attacks to Syria, you shouldn't be surprised when the Syrians come knocking at your door. If you support bombing Palestine, you still shouldn't be upset. This is a natural phenomenon. It's a matter of action and reaction.
Unfortunately the case of Syria applies to Turkey as well. We should have been impartial from the very beginning. However, Erdoğan, the leader of the Ummah, wanted to intervene, as usual.
By that logic most Syrians would be knocking on Russia's door...
US too. But why would US or Russia think about it while there is open border, welfare countries in EU? I'm pretty sure these both would prefer a non-stable, right wing managed EU.
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. 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.
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/