Intense phase of Israel's war with Hamas about to end, Netanyahu says (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 4 months ago by slurpinderpin@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

The "intensive" phase of Israel's offensive in Gaza will soon end, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday — but he signaled he would only accept a "partial" cease-fire deal that would not end the war, and that this new phase would allow a shift in focus to the simmering conflict on the country's northern border with Lebanon.

According to Bibi...
And in the same breathe saying he doesn't want to end the war.

Bibi is facing calls from the left and right in his country to stop stalling the election. If an election happens, he's not going to win.

So he's going to keep this war going as long as possible. And is blatantly saying any slow down in Gaza would be to increase attacks on Lebanon.

It's literally the only thing keeping him in office, because war is his only excuse for not letting Israelis hold a vote.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

This corresponds with the previous recent Lebanese leak that israel is going to pipe down the Genocide in 5 weeks and now commit to starting a war with Hezbollah

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Then the non-intense but never-ending phase begins.

They don't need an intense phase at this point. Who's left?

[-] Land_Strider@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

The non-intense part is an actual requirement for land development. I don't think their zionist settlers would like the experience of trucking beach house materials under fire or while facing blockades. Those are reserved for the aid convoys.

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I don't believe their words. Stop fighting

Edit: I see OP supports Israel. After all that's become clear about their genocide.

[-] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I’m vehemently anti-Hamas. Very pro-Palestine. Hamas is a cancer to Palestine.

Israel is America’s closest ally in the region, and an important factor in maintaining our global influence. I don’t agree with their tactics, but I understand why our leadership will never turn their backs on them

There’s this thing called nuance, and you need to understand that the world is far more complicated than just “stop fighting”

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

lol All you've done is defend Israel here

"it's simple, Hamas just has to surrender" is not a peace plan

[+] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world -7 points 4 months ago

That's the only way this war ends. I'm just being realistic, not emotional

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

What about national and international pressure on the Netanyahu government?

[-] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago

Has that had any effect? Has international pressure ever had any effect on Israel?

Again, you might HOPE and WISH that the US will put immense pressure on Israel, but like I stated before, we won't. There are reasons why our leadership will continue to back them.

So while maybe we can all agree that it would be the best possible scenario, hoping and wishing is far from reality in this situation. Given the facts of reality, the only way this war ends is by Hamas surrendering and returning the hostages

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

And then the occupation continues. How does that solve anything? There will be another resistance group, of course. Israel already was a pain in the ass for Palestinians before October 7th. They don't see going back to that situation as meaningful progress.

Nothing about your stance is pragmatic. It doesn't even make logical sense. It's cowardice to give in and the rest of the world can go back to ignoring suffering of the Palestinians. Israel is genociding Palestinians and you're here blaming Hamas??

[-] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago

I'm not ignoring the suffering of Palestinians - the only way anything can progress however is the complete surrender of Hamas. Israel will just continue the killing until then. Why do you think they'll suddenly stop without a complete surrender?

How many Palestinians live in Israel?

"Approximately 1.8 million Palestinians form around 20.8 per cent of Israel’s population." Source: https://minorityrights.org/communities/palestinians/

Is that what Genocide looks like? I think it's fair to say that their military tactics in Gaza are extreme, we can agree there. But I would also say that dropping bombs on Gaza is a direct result of Hamas' actions and existence. Hamas cares as little about Palestinians as Israel (actually less I would argue). They have no interest in diplomacy or a two state solution, they're only interested in the complete destruction of Israel

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Now you're at genocide denial. I'm done. Fuck that

[-] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Why would they allow almost 2 million Palestinians to live in their country if they wanted them all dead? You’re in denial that civilians are killed during wars

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

"their country"

🤔

[-] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Yes, if Israel wanted to kill all Palestinians, why would there be nearly 2m in Israel?

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

All of Israel is stolen land. They're stealing even more as we speak.

To answer your question: They will and they have outright killed thousands, tens of thousands of Palestinians. They destroyed schools, hospital, cemeteries, media offices, homes. They are not letting in food in the country, causing a goddamn famine. Everybody has seen it. Everybody knows it's happening.

You can sod right off if you want a specific number of summary executions before it 'counts' as a genocide. Absolutely abhorrent behavior. I'm blocking your ass right now. Bye.

[-] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Who was there before the Palestinians? Jews right?

[-] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Here, you probably haven't gotten to the class in college yet where you learn what words mean, but this is the definition of "genocide":

the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

Now please answer my question, if it was a genocide, and they were trying to destroy all Palestinians, why would there be 2m Palestinians living in Israel? Wouldn't they have killed them first? Or expelled them? Could it be that the Palestinians being killed now are collateral damage in a war?

[-] retrospectology@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Why is any self respecting media outlet still describing this as a war?

[-] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

War definition: a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state

[+] retrospectology@lemmy.world -7 points 4 months ago

Ah, so the holocaust was a war then too since some jews resisted, right? If the US government started killing illegal migrants would that be a "war"?

Always makes things so much simpler when we can just kind of make words mean whatever we want huh?

[-] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

No. Hamas is an organized armed group, fighting Israel, another organized armed group. You are the one trying to twist the definition of war. It's very clear cut

[+] retrospectology@lemmy.world -6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The vast majority of deaths are innocent civilians. It's not a war, no.

There were holocaust survivors that armed themselves and fought back. That makes it a war by your definition. Germany and the jews of europe were just fighting a war.

See how that works?

[-] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Ugh man, sure, if you want to go that far, Jews who armed themselves and fought against Nazis were in a war. Whatever. But in war, civilians are killed.

"Between 300,000–600,000 German civilians and over 200,000 Japanese civilians were killed by allied bombing during the Second World War, most as a result of raids intentionally targeted against civilians themselves." Source: https://academic.oup.com/book/9859/chapter-abstract/157134577?redirectedFrom=fulltext

"Some 75 million people died in World War II, including about 20 million military personnel and 40 million civilians" Source : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/casualties-of-world-war-ii/

Please recognize that you are trying to twist the definition of war here, not me.

[-] retrospectology@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yeah, totally, the victims of the holocaust were just civilian casulties on the jewish side, that's just war, you know? Civilians are gonna be systematically targeted and killed, civilian infrastructure decimated intentionally etc.

The irony of you saying I'm twisting the definition of war when Israel has total control of Gaza, controls any food, water, electricity has bombed 70% of infrastructure and driven the entire population into a tiny square of land is too much. You can't actually be serious.

Gaza is an apartheid state controlled by Israel, there is no functioning state that they're overthrowing, there is no standing army or opposing military industry, they already 100% control Gaza. If the government blows up an entire block of apartments because a terrorist is hiding there that's not "war" that's indiscriminate slaughter.

[-] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Go read the definition of war again. It doesn’t require a functioning state with a standing army. It doesn’t mention anything about civilian deaths. It’s literally just 2 sides engaged in an armed conflict. Want to argue about the definition of war? Write to Merriam Webster. I don’t care

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war

[-] retrospectology@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago

I'm using your definition of war. You just don't like it when you realize it can be used to literally erase the holocaust the same way you're trying to erase the genocide in Gaza.

[-] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

War and genocide can both be happening, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. As history has proved many times.

[-] Daveyborn@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

There was this little thing that was happening around the same time as the holocaust, World War 2.

[-] retrospectology@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago

Yeah, the Germans and the jews were just two warring factions, same as the UK and Germany or the US and Japan etc. The jews weren't experiencing a genocide, they were just experiencing a war like everyone else. Right?

[-] Daveyborn@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

the point slurpinderpin and me are making is they can happen simultaneously, neither of us are denying genocide.

[-] retrospectology@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No, the point they're avoiding is that the word "war" is pretty obviously being used to make it seem as if these are two equal sides fighting it out. That's why the media continues to use the word "war" to describe what's happening, to make it seem like Israel is somehow justified in what they are doing and that the Gazans have some kind of agency here. It's an attempt to normalize genocide.

In reality it isn't a war, it's a slaughter in a territory where Israel controls everything already and where they are indiscriminately killing civilians, decimating civilian infrastructure (hospitals, schools, bakeries, bulldozing cemetaries etc.) and choking off aid with the deliberate aim of inflicting as much death and suffering on the people of Gaza as possible.

If I have someone tied up and am pummeling them in the face that's not a "fight", just like bombing fish in a barrel is not a 'war". It's just right wing propaganda-speak and it needs to stop.

[+] YourPrivatHater@ani.social -15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

[deleted]

[-] BMatthew@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Yes, it is important to kill those kids so the next generation of terrorists never grows up. /s

[+] YourPrivatHater@ani.social -15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

[deleted]

[+] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world -18 points 4 months ago

It's really just a bunch of leftists who think that any side that is disadvantaged (see Hamas in this scenario) deserves their undying support. It's pretty whack, especially when it means supporting literal terrorists

[-] thejml@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago

Most people would be happy if a Bibi only killed Hamas instead of just firing bombs indiscriminately into refugee shelters and hospitals. It’s been made pretty clear that the IDF cares nothing about innocent civilians. If you want to make more terrorists, this is how you make more terrorists.

[-] Squizzy@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

There are thousands of children dead, refugee camps bombed, hospitals sieged, civilians tortured and most recently a civilian strapped to a car and taken for a spin.

This does not need to fit into a left right template to be seen for what it is, a land grab. Another one.

Palestinians have a right to exist and place to exist.

[-] Land_Strider@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Labeling one side as terrorists while both are employing the terrorism has just a difference of political power, and that is even in some parts of the world only. Also, lets not forget the side that is not officially labeled a terrorist organization has been employing the terrorism to a greater extent with much more intensity for 3 quarters of a century and only for vile outcomes rather than as crappy tools for an understandable cause.

this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024

13 points (65.1% liked)

World News

38936 readers

2141 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

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world