122
submitted 1 year ago by alyaza@beehaw.org to c/news@beehaw.org

the front page is now like half articles on this currently, so it's probably time for a megathread because none of us want to keep track of 12 threads on this subject and all the resulting comments. only major subsequent developments (for example, boots on the ground; pronunciations by governments; that sort of stuff) will get their own thread. otherwise please post stuff in here for the time being. any threads not meeting this criteria will be locked and removed. thank you in advance for your cooperation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 89 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's terrible that Israeli civilians were murdered.

It's wonderful that the world is stating such, and showing its support to prevent further murder of innocents.

It's terrible that Palestinian civilians were murdered.

It's terrible that the world is ignoring this, and turning a blind eye to further murder of innocents.

[-] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 31 points 1 year ago

Exactly. If you look at the big picture, Israelis have killed WAY more Palestinians over the years, as well as apartheid and stealing Palestinian land.

I'm not taking sides, but the one sided coverage gross.

[-] Lols@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

taking sides is fine and even right, but that needs to come with recognition and acceptance of that side's problems

[-] BluesF@feddit.uk 11 points 1 year ago

The problem with this conflict in particular is that taking the side of Palestine has become synonymous with taking the side of Hamas, or with simply being antisemitic. It's essential if you want to express any support for Palestine that you also painstakingly lay out exactly what you support and what you don't, otherwise.... Well, the onion said it best.

[-] Lols@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

it hasnt become synonymous, certain people want to make it seem like theyre synonymous

[-] krellor@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

I don't think articulating a concern for any civilians on any side is taken poorly, and I don't think that the majority of the media has skewed any calls for humanitarian aid and adherance to international warfare rules as anti-semitism. In fact, the new york times has published both investigative and opinion pieces that are very sympathetic to Palestinian civilians, and calling out Israeli disproportionate response.

I think part of the problem in discussing the issue is that the events of today are inextricably woven into the events of the

  • 1948 founding of Israel by the UN at the end of the British mandate.
  • the invasion of the five armies and the 1949 armistice.
  • the six day war, and the loss of the Sinai peninsula.
  • the eventual recognition of borders by Egypt and Jordan.
  • the results of the shelling of Beirut after the Hezbollah attack in 2006.

But that is a lot of history, but the back and forth of tragedies, including disproportionate response is driven by these events.

When most people online seem to confuse the history of Gaza with that of the West Bank, or conflate Hamas and Hezbollah, it is no wonder that discussion breaks down.

Unfortunately I was in a debate elsewhere on the fediverse where the other person said there is no legitimate response to the Hamas attack for Israel because Israel's existence is the source of the problem.

That sounds like the Hezbollah general who yesterday called this a "war of existence" in that either Israel exists or the Arab alliance exists. So how do you reason with that position, and how many people objecting to Israel's use of force are really all that knowledgeable of the history?

I also think that people underestimate how you reason with allies. If Biden hadn't shown solidarity with Israel, then his visit today wouldn't have resulted in the opening of humanitarian aid. You influence allies by showing solidarity publicly, and having frank conversations on private.

Anyway, sorry for the long post. Have a great evening!

[-] acastcandream@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It doesn’t matter who killed more. That’s why this never ends. “My tragedy is worse than your tragedy” is never productive. It just serves as an (incorrect) argument for why it’s permissible for one group to keep committing atrocities while the other group has to suffer it and be the first to bury the hatchet. Then the script flips and everyone does it again from their respective positions. It never ends.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago

It's terrible that some civilians immigrated to Israel for the sole purpose of becoming settlers and pushing Palestinians out.

It's terrible that some civilians immigrated to Gaza for the sole purpose of having as big a family as possible to use their own children and grandchildren as human shields against Israeli settlers.

It's terrible that dual-citizenship people on both sides are asking "their" [other] countries to evacuate them, after having spent decades there on purpose.

It's terrible that Israel is willing to watch millions of civilians starve... that Egypt doesn't want to let refugees in... and Hamas doesn't want to let them out.

So far, I see nothing wonderful in all of this.

[-] Fanstar1@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago

Can you substantiate that 2nd point? I haven't heard it anywhere before.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Source: Spanish TV.

There has been some uproar this week because there are over 10,000 Spanish citizens in Israel and Gaza, but the government only decided to fleet 2 military planes to evacuate 500 of them. Turns out, they were only evacuating the "tourists and people on business trips"... meaning the rest are not; they're people who decided to immigrate there. Following that, different reporters got hold of people "left behind", both in Israel and Gaza.

One of those people, was a lady who immigrated to Gaza 40 years ago, "to settle right next to the Israeli border", and now kept repeating how the Spanish consulate is ignoring her request for evacuating her 19-people family, with many children among them.

It's estimated that 50% of the population of Gaza are underage, meaning they're people born in the last 18 years, into a conflict that's been going for 70 years, from way before this lady decided to immigrate there 40 years ago and contribute to the population growth.


Source: Internet (various)

Some statistics about this:

Both sides are engaged in a long term (100+ years) strategy of trying to out-number each other, with sympathizers of each side migrating there to increase the numbers for the conflict. Since immigration into Gaza and Palestine is more restricted than into Israel, the former have been trying to churn out as many "new residents" (aka kids) as quickly as possible... who are now being used by Hamas as a humanitarian crisis bargaining chip.

Notice how even with a steady emigration of about half the population of Palestine every year, the total population keeps growing, along with a steady immigration rate of around 200K/year:

[-] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago

You do realize that poorer regions have much higher fertility because of much higher child mortality rates and much lower average lifespans, right? Fertility is inversely proportional with wealth and access to healthcare.

This isn't unique to Gaza. It's true in Africa, India, and pre-communist China.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Notice how the sharpest decline in Palestine's demographic pyramid appears between 14 and 34 years old, or about when people realize what's going on and decide to GTFO, and how that fits the constantly increasing emigration, while the increasing population —despite higher child mortality, lower lifespans, and extreme emigration— fits the profile of adapting fertility to and ideological parity with Israel's immigration rates.

Since you mentioned India:

Notice the low child mortality with an actual increase towards the age of 22. We could discuss the large younger male surplus, though.

[-] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

I'd recommend you take a look at the demographic pyramids of countries in Africa. Mortality is steepest in the 14-34 range because that's when most people die.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's nonsense. Feel free to investigate the demographics of the World, Africa, Niger, Ukraine, China, or the US, to get a feel for "infant mortality" or "when most people die".

https://www.populationpyramid.net/

[-] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Have you ever looked at the tool you sent?

Please, do put in Niger and find out (FWIW, your tool is very low granularity and I know there are visualizers that show it at a more fine scale).

this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
122 points (100.0% liked)

World News

22100 readers
206 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


For US News, see the US News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS