World News
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.
-
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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
view the rest of the comments
It's 500,000 liters. You don't just get to say that doesn't matter. Especially when the fuel the UN brought in was also stolen by Hamas. If Hamas is stealing and hoarding all the fuel, then they do carry the blame for the lack of fuel. What good is it doing anyone if everything there will just be stolen by Hamas and then used for further attacks?
The lack of fuel is caused by Israeli illegal blockage on Gaza (which is also a war crime btw). Yes, there is a chance the military side of Hamas has fuel tucked away, but the main cause is still Israel stopping any goods from entering.
By the end of today, if volunteers can no longer bring fuel to the hospitals, about 130 babies are risking death within minutes without incubators. Let's not fucking kid ourselves... Israel is the problem. Whatever Hamas "steals" as you claim (something the UNRWA later denied) is only a drop in the ocean when we talk about 2 million residents who haven't gotten basic needs that would normally flow into Gaza on a daily basis.
Those 130 babies will literally not die. For starters.
How are you ignoring the fact that Hamas takes the fuel. The UN just said they had their fuel stolen. So those babies will die, more Israelis will die, and more Palestinians will die.
If the UN had forces guarding supplies and stopping theft, that might be different. But you are asking Israel to allow in supplies that are be and will continue to be stolen and used in attacks against Israel. Ignoring that it will not save civilians.
If they actually get it. Hamas has already shown they will take it and not give it to their citizens.
Unless Hamas decides to prioritize its citizens, there is nothing the world can do and they are dead.
So, to Israel, are Gazans less important? Because Israel as already shown they will bomb the Rahah checkpoint and not allow fuel in knowing full well it's needed for generating electricity and providing clean water?
I'm genuinely asking: what do you think is Israel's responsibility towards civilians in Gaza and their own hostages stuck in Gaza as well?
As with any nation - yes, your citizens are less important than mine.
I won't comment on the checkpoint as I am not informed on the full story. I have however formally studied war crime in the general sense (not this specific example though).
Blockades are legitimate and commonly used in warfare - denying supplies are practical and it can be reasonably assumed they will find their way into the hands of the enemy. Saying that, it must be proportional and cause as little disruption to the civilian population as possible.
hamas has shown it will cross borders to kill and abduct civilians, and kill them at a later date (undisputed war crime there).
Hamas has shown they will claim aid destined for civilians
hamas has shown they will withhold supplies from it citizens
Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that any supplies crossing the border will be used in direct action against Israel. If the aid was finding its way to civilians, was being utilized for humanitarian reasons and distinctly separately from armed forces supplies it could be argued that the blockade is now illegal. This would also apply if Hamas was no longer a threat.
Israel responsibility lies with its citizens first. Does it suck for civilians stuck in the middle - absolutely.
@HappycamperNZ
It's not a food fight. Deliberate starvation is against international law..
I don't know what you "studied formally" but either you misunderstood what it means to consider the effects on the civilian population, or the person teaching you was some kind of monster.
Reading your link - deliberate starvation of civilians with intent to cause civilian harm or death, or eliminate a part of the population is indeed a war crime.
Also quoted from your link - a blockade is only intended to remove resources from adversarial forces, impediment of humanitarian aid is incidental harm. They key difference here is intent, and with Hamas seizing aid crossing the border and not distributing it any reasonable person would agree that it is stopping supplies to opposing forces.
Does it suck for civilian population - absolutely. But its not a war crime. Personally I think a coalition of multiple countries needs to go in and remove hamas, get aid set up for the civilian population and then investigate crimes on both sides - but that's not going to happen.
@HappycamperNZ I think you have an eccentric interpretation of international law that is contrary to most expert opinion. Which is fortunate because starving civilian populations for any reason is a gruesome thing to do and is quite rightly illegal.
Starving the civilians in this context is widely seen as illegal. Here are some examples of legal consensus opinion I found from a quick google:
The UN Human Rights Council Israel/Gaza: UN experts urge lawyers advising Israeli military to refuse legal authorisation of actions that could amount to war crimes
The ICJ Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory: immediately end attacks on civilians
Center For Constitutional Rights, US Rights Lawyers Release Legal Analysis of U.S. Complicity in Israel’s Unfolding Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza
Second article on this
CFR: What International Law Has to Say About the Israel-Hamas War
Legal opinion in Jurist Hamas Atrocities Cannot Rationalize the Starvation of Civilians
Legal professor quoted in Deutschwelle who sums up consensus Israel, Gaza: What are the rules of international law?
I accept that you will easily be able to point me to competing positions, largely from Israelis and Americans, but I think you should be aware that these are in the minority.
If the people living in Gaza don't belong to israel to which nation to they belong?
Legally, none. If you mean for travel purposes (passport), then they can apply for that with the Palestinian authority. I haven't a clue what their tax system is, but they aren't being paid to Israel. Stateless people exist all over the world. And some people start in one nation, never move, and up in another. This isn't even a point of contention in the situation.
fuck genocidal zionist Israel.
Yeah, we know you came in here with an agenda and no intention of unbiased discussion.
If Hamas steals the fuel. Allowing the fuel in is defacto allowing the military your fighting to resupply.
Hamas, as the governing body of the Gaza Strip, has a duty to supply it's populace with sufficient good when conducting a war. It's inability to do so it's Hamas' fault, not the fault of the person they declared war upon.
Collective punishment is a war crime. Why is this being forgotten here? Why does Israel get an okay to commit war crimes and blame it on the population and a government the majority of them didn't even vote for in 2006 (you do the math, 1.1m Gazans are children, and the other 1.1m other adults needed to have been at least 18 in 2006, and on top of that it was a 40% vote, so the excuse you are making is pure BS to be honest... putting the fault on a "governing body" of a population that is not able to govern itself or have free elections since ever, with Israel making every step in their lives infinitely worse and holding out water).
Israel = genocide.
Because it's not collective punishment. Collective punishment is things like the Bombing of Dresden or the Battle of Britain where a military/air force explicitly target civilian infrastructure. Declining to supply your enemy isn't a war crime.
Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2004/2005. They've been self governing since then. Had they (Israel) forced a regime change in the past they would have been criticized by the world for reneging on their commitment to a two state solution. It's not a great situation, but polling suggests that Hamas is incredibly popular in both the Strip and the West Bank.
Oh, and blockades are not war crimes and can be reasonably consider proportional to reduce the chances and effect of further attacks against its civilians (which were undoubtedly war crimes).
Holding the blockade to punish civilians once hamas is no longer a threat would be a war crime, but not there yet.
You mean they are regulated by international law. When was the last time you heard about Israel not breaking international law? I'm serious.
Yes, the literal definition of crime is against the law.
I haven't heard of them breaking the law ever - didn't hear about Palestine either until they crossed the border a few weeks ago.
Then you have a lot of reading to catch up with.
Yes, last one i saw was something like 1,500 years of history that lead to this one?
Unfortunately the blockade we are discussing is only a few weeks old.
Nah the blockades has been around since 2005 when Hamas took over in Gaza, after Israel demilitarized and demobilized the entire region (this was intended to occur in the west bank as well, but with the way things went in Gaza that idea died). And the blockades has intensified over the years coinciding with attacks.
After this, we are likely looking at an extended dmz if I give my honest thoughts.
Yeah, your comment isn't "fuck Israel" so you got downvoted too. This whole post reeks of biased agenda rather than discussions.
I don't want to sound unemphatic, but would YOU wish to be born to a world like that? I know I'll get downvoted for this, but I'd like to take a real look for once. Sure, every life is precious, and that part of the world might have different views of what is good and bad about it, but a fucking warzone? It's like giving birth and taking care of a baby in in Ukraine.