This morning I could hardly find a headline to confirm Israel invaded Lebanon. Everything was about how scary Iran is.
What the fucking fuckery fuck media? How is Iran’s response to Israel’s invasion more important than Israel invading? I shouldn’t have to dig for 20 minutes to confirm something like that.
I saw plenty of headlines about the invasion of Lebanon. It just happened first, so the newer headlines would be about the thing that just happened
These things happened hours apart. And many of the stubs behind the Iran headlines made no mention of why they would fire missiles at Israel. After today I won’t be surprised when we start getting people in here who think Iran fired for no reason and Israel hasn’t invaded Lebanon. It was an absolute failure of news media.
I’m not defending the media by any stretch, just that both events got some coverage.
Yeah I’m just mad because they know the timing matters. They know the words they use matter. We’ve heard them talk about this exact kind of failing in the Iraq war and covering Trump. And now we’re right back there again, breathlessly repeating the administration and their ally. Calling it a “limited ground operation”. They know that first impression matters and there’s a whole group of people who now think Israel got rocketed for terrorist hunting.
It’s called moving the goalposts. You called out their Bs claim, so they just threw out another one.
Anyone can go and listen to npr up first. The title for yesterday includes “Israel escalates in Lebanon” and then today they point to Israel vowing repercussions for Iran. In the podcast itself, they talk about how this was almost certainly retaliation for the killing for the Hezbollah leader.
This whole idea that the whole of western media is ignoring what Israel is typical of the false Bs pushed by the op.
So it’s an “escalation” and retaliation for something else entirely.
You realize this fits the exact outline I’ve laid out? Anything to avoid pointing out Israel has invaded the sovereign territory of another country.
And no. I haven’t moved any goalposts.
You realize this fits the exact outline I’ve laid out?
Your main claims were the all of the headlines “about how scary Iran is” (the fact that it was a headline about Israel escalating and Israel vowing repercussions) and “many of the stubs behind the Iran headlines made no mention of why they would fire missiles at Israel” (and the short story in NPR was about why they were retaliating). It directly contradicts it, using one of the most popular and prominent US news organizations.
And no. I haven’t moved any goalposts.
Your original argument was that there were no headlines, which the other poster challenged. . .you then went not to say that the stories didn’t give information about why they retaliated. It’s absolutely a clear case of moving the goal posts.
Attempting to gaslighting me won’t work, sorry. We’ve had too many interactions before for me not to be on the lookout for disingenuous positions.
It’s not gaslighting, it’s two people talking about the news environment they experienced yesterday morning. You’re the one trying to make it awkward and accusing people of operating in bad faith. I know what I saw and you’re not going to bully me into having seen what you say was there.
Hey, how dare you oppose my blatant false pretense with facts that are verifiable!
-Ozma before he downvoted you
No invasion from any media I saw.
Just an incursion
Read better media. And it’s not like the BBC is particularly progressive on this.
Sounds like something an antisemite would say! Why do you hate jews instead of the barbarian brown people, antisemite?
/s
to be clear, the iran government is basically oil backed terrorism and human rights abuses. Yeah fuck iran.
I wouldn’t trust a single thing iran says.
Quite different compared to staunch US ally Saudi Arabia.
have i said that i would trust a single thing that saudia arabia says? Ever?
I don’t know if things are different in the US but I haven’t seen much indifference to the bombing of Palestine. I’ve seen an awful lot of mention of children killed, etc.
The republican party is pushing bills through the lower branch that enshrine real antisemitism through Zionism. That’s where US media and politics are at regarding the genocide.
They’re somewhat different. Our news media doesn’t properly question our security agencies (they basically stopped doing this after 9/11), and Israel is our strongest Middle East alley, so they tend to present the Israeli narrative of the war with little or no scrutiny. That being said, given the sheer amount of destruction and death caused by the Israeli bombings, our media really can’t ignore the suffering of the Palestinians this time. They’re still far too deferential to Israel’s justification for the suffering, but they’re not ignoring.
This depends a lot on where you are. This is a heavily partisan issue so you’ll likely find rural Republicans who haven’t seen many people IRL who have issues with the bombing of Palestine.
Have you heard about them bombing Lebanon yesterday though, or even for the last few months? It got a passing mention and only in the context of “this might cause Iran to respond”. And there’s a few more flags on that picture.
The beauty of not consuming any main stream media is that it can have said or not said anything you want to confirm your beliefs.
Its different from European coverage yes, but it’s also not even remotely similar to what people like ozma keep claiming it is. The Palestine issue is being talked about CONSTANTLY, just perhaps still not with enough urgency. They then just hyperbolize it into shit like this “meme”
Because the entire western world seemingly has to tip toe around Israel and let them get away with whatever they want because of some collective shame and empathy Europe and America still feel for something that happened before most people in Israel today were ever born…
The holocaust was bad…yeah. But the fact that that tragedy somehow gives the state of Israel an unlimited pass in perpetuity to be assholes is just wrong.
The holocaust was used as something with which it was somehow immoral to compare other genocides in the 00s. Thus as a tool to make those more acceptable, cause no ongoing genocide can be as bad as the holocaust, or so pro-Israeli organizations say.
That was its only role.
While the David&Goliath narrative in the 70s and 80s was used to make Israel infallible in public opinion, paving the path for Israeli intelligence widely penetrating western governments and structures.
But even this wouldn’t be critical, if not for the West becoming more authoritarian gradually. Notice how the ruling structures in the West have been becoming less and less mobile, the key figures fewer and fewer, less and less transparent, and also older and older, and the concepts of right, law, constitutional law, common sense and natural right fuzzier and weaker, surrendering the reality to fallback mechanisms - as in raw power.
The less transparent a structure is, the easier it can be controlled by blackmail, personal interests and deals that the public wouldn’t want if it knew about them.
Say, about USSR in the 80s - the stereotypic picture of it being some geriatric non-transparent bureacratic warmongering state with fascist policies and degrading society, - it’s correct. The problem is - it just aged faster. The West was simply late by a couple decades. Those components of USSR’s collapse were not conditioned by totalitarian communism in any way. Just in the West late boomers are in power, while USSR was ruled by the last pre-war generation.
Israel is just one symptom.
So this can’t be solved by any conformism, arguing by the rules, proving things in courts, voting in elections. Only by bravery, strength and taking responsibility backed only by what you want and your own decision, no law, rule or vote.
deleted by creator
“Erm akshurally, did those civilians condemn Hummus” ☝️🤓
“waaa the consequences of my actions!”
Not true. In my country they reported on all of it. I’ve been reading and watching along.
Same I think. Here in the UK the main two TV news channels (BBC and Sky) have extensively reported on deaths and suffering in Gaza, and now they are reporting on the situation in Lebanon
Of course there are also right-wing papers (Telegraph, Express) who give the impression that Israel is always good and everybody else is always bad, but they’re just one segment of the overall media
Do you like not read the news ever?
The funny thing is AP is actually also a primary source distributor, so they actually provide their reporting to thousands of media outlets so they can report the details. Unfortunately, because news outlets these days are focused on profits, we get stuff like this:
Kinda stupid when you consider more people probably read NYT than AP and Reuters combined, despite it being a secondary source. Or they go watch/read even more biased things on stuff like Fox.
All but one of those articles are a decade old, and they’re all op-eds, not news articles per se.
Don’t be mad when opinion articles express peoples opinions. All the other shown articles are a decade old and/or opinion articles. There is room to complain, so why not do it accurately?
Israel and Iran going for a real war, would make the currently bad situation even worse. However it does come with the advantage that both countries might get rid of their shitty leaders.
I don’t think that’s true. Because Biden won’t be able to resist. We’ll have US troops on the ground and he’ll still be saying Hamas is blocking the peace process.
Israel and Iran going for a real war, would make the currently bad situation even worse.
For who? It’ll create more bad situations, but the currently bad situation in Palestine will get better, if anything. I know everyone is afraid of an all out war in the Middle East but in the long term it’s one possible way to collapse the status quo and make way for a more sustainable future for the region. War is bad, but it’s not worse than a warmonger getting to steamroll everyone else and Israel needs to regain the fear of God (and their neighbors) before there’s ever a chance for peace. Egypt and Syria proved it in opposite directions in 1973.
Edit: A weaker Iran would also help countries like Lebanon and Iran gain some real independence (and turn the tide against Assad); they’re definitely not sinless here.
There are anti war protests in Israel against Netanyahu since Hamas attack on the October 7th. As soon as the fighting ends an new election will be called and Netanyahu is probably going to loose that one. That would mean a more moderate government for Israel and the chance for a deal with the PLO. However a war with Iran delays this and we know what is going on in Palestine right now.
A weaker Iran might help, but the way of getting rid of Iran as a problem is a revolution within Iran. I doubt a war against Israel would help with that.
There are anti war protests in Israel against Netanyahu since Hamas attack on the October 7th.
Yes, but not for the reasons you think. The overwhelming majority of Israelis have absolutely no issue with the violence being inflicted upon Palestinians (I can link a source). The right wing keeps growing in Israel, and was even before the war. The protests are happening because even as a genocidal fascist Netanyahu is failing in the Israeli goal of destroying Hamas’s ability to wage war (surprise surprise) and bringing the hostages home (more surprise). The government that comes after this won’t have Likud, but it’ll still be a far right one. Settlements will keep getting built, we’ll still have people like “I consider my life’s mission to be preventing the creation of a Palestinian state” Smotrich, Gazans will still be forced to live in an open air concentration camp, etc etc. A deal with the PLO is fucking impossible, both because Israel won’t get a more moderate government and because the PLO is dead. Mahmoud Abbas is a corrupt Israeli puppet and everyone knows it; even Biden admits the PLO will need to be reformed before they can be trusted to run anything.
TL;DR: Even after the next election, don’t expect any good faith peace action from Israel. It won’t happen; we’ve seen this movie before.
A weaker Iran might help, but the way of getting rid of Iran as a problem is a revolution within Iran. I doubt a war against Israel would help with that.
I mean if they’re weakened by the war they won’t be able to give as much Hezbollah and Syria weapons. That has to count for something.
Are they able to delay elections based on the status of their military engagements? That’s seems like a big problem with their democracy…
No elections are scheduled to be held in October 2026, but the coaltion is very likely going to break as soon as the war ends.
Exactly, can’t have and lose a new election if the warring never ends.
Replace the Israeli flag on top with an American flag and t this is more accurate. Americans moralizing about invasions and unjust wars lol
because when it is done against white people, fear mongering works better in western countries. also lobbies
jews are white now?
Only when it’s convenient.
true
Hate agreeing with a troll, but here we are stomping through a field of broken clocks.
Ozma is anything but a troll. They’re highly consistent in their political beliefs, and generally knows the topics they post about. Not everyone you disagree with is a troll or a foreign agent.
Thank you
Who said anything about foreign agents? But you do seem to have a sense of my objections to their agenda. Anyone who posts so prolifically will at any rate have thick enough skin to tolerate being misunderstood.
Gurrrll I’ve been through the 2016 election Twitter wars and 11 years on Reddit. Nothing phases me anymore. I’m numb.
What part of any of those things would stop somebody from being a troll?
Uh… A troll is someone who goes on the internet to piss off people and farm downvotes. Not people you generally expect knowledge and consistency from.
You’ve just stated two perpendicular statements. Is hexbear now not full of tankie trolls? They’re certainly consistent.
I mean it’s full of tankies, but yeah they’re not really trolls either. They’re just stupid.
They consistently piss me off and farm my downvotes, so uh
Nono, he made his point in a condescending way, he’s won the argument
There was never any argument of substance here, only bickering. Hell, my opening statement was that I agreed with OP.
deleted by creator
Small corrections: Iran launched missiles from their home soil; those weren’t airstrikes. Unfortunately Israel’s air force is unparalleled in the Middle East.
Imagine feeling the urge to back either side of this thousand-year conflict and also screaming about your moral superiority in doing so.
Stop supporting monsters.
🤡
Please provide references and evidence of conflict spanning back a thousand years. The conflict started after the Ottoman Empire collapsed and the region got divided up in a colonial experiment by the French and British.
believe it or not sometimes people do a little bit of hyperbole and exaggeration.
I would never do that, not in a million years. It’s literally impossible.
Huh? The conflict is at least as old as 1834 (Ottoman empire fell in 1922) and they’ve been trading blows since well before that.
What was occurring in 1834?
Secretarian religious violence in Israel with proto Israeli terrorists involved. Notably the order issued to murder any Muslim found in Hebron. Many families were removed and would never return with proto Israeli Jews taking “abandoned” property and refusing to relinquish it to this day.
It’s a very very old territorial and secretarian conflict, trying to imply it’s summer limited modern engagement lacks nuance and is at best myopic.
Palestine was a territory of the Ottoman Empire at the time. Israel did not exist.
From what I can gather online there was a peasant revolt, but nothing sectarian about it. The Ottomans pillaged the villages during and after the revolt.
The movement towards Israeli as a state is a direct result of the actions of 1834, that’s specifically why I mentioned it.
Then you didn’t read.
The problem with this opinion is that it’s not based on fact: the Zionist movement originated in Europe as a result of pogroms there, not in the Middle East.
I’ll take one shitty liberal democracy before I take five shitty far-right religious dictatorships.
Israel isn’t a “liberal democracy”, shitty or not. It’s a fascist apartheid state. Please wake the fuck up.
also the others wouldn’t have been dictatorships if the west didn’t constantly fuck with their shit, create instability and power vacuums.
deleted by creator
Apartheid. Give me a break.
I remember apartheid. The minority race didn’t let the majority race vote, citizens of the same country. That was what turned the world against South Africa, made Apartheid a crime against humanity.
Israel is an apartheid state because they don’t let people from terra nullius vote in their elections? Okay buddy.
I think you’ll find that actual experts, including the UN and Nobel peace prize laureate and Apartheid survivor Desmond Tutu disagree(d) with whether or not Israel is an Apartheid state and whether voting rights was the main problem in Apartheid South Africa 🤦
Israel is an Apartheid state because it by law gives full rights to Ashkenazi Jews while treating Mizrahim and the Palestinians in the occupied territories (which are effectively under Israeli control) as second class citizens and nonhumans, respectively.
Palestinians in the “occupied” territory aren’t citizens of Israel; they don’t want to be and the world doesn’t want them to be. People would flip their shit at a one state solution, they’d be self imolating all over the place. What you’re suggesting is called annexation. I’d support annexation if it would stop all the pointless killing and help democratize the region. If Palestinians wanted to be Israeli, there wouldn’t have been 100 years of terrorism on both sides or even now, we’d be talking about lawful occupation and jurisdiction of under terra nullius, or irredentism.
Actual experts at the UN disagree strongly, and have no consensus on this. I went to school with some of them and was a better student. Some others of them, as it turns out, were actually far-right religious terrorists themselves, and were using the UN for decades as a platform to teach generations of Palestinian kids the honor of martyrdom culture and terror culture.
Here’s the thing about Desmond Tutu and other legal scholars who wrote comparative-law content on Palestine and apartheid (lower case a): “like” and “as” don’t mean the same thing.
There was a lot of legal scholarship for a while around the time that the world turned on South Africa, and for years after, during reconstruction, when it was trendy to draw comparisons to Apartheid (big A). I concede that interested people have taken that comparative work, and misquoted it to suggest that there was any kind of serious scholarship saying that Israel-Palestine was as apartheid, until it became truth for some people. I disagree with them. Racially oppressive government’s exist all over the world, yet the world has not turned on them as it turned on South Africa in an such a unanimous and unprecedented way. It was really something to behold. And even afterward, all the help and support the world gave South Africa with reconstruction: so many people were so proud to help launch a new democracy, to write from scratch a constitution for a modern nation that was freeing itself from being oppressors and its people for being oppressed.
Desmond Tutu’s work doesn’t support that he believed Palestine was literally the same as apartheid (small a), he drew certain comparisons, said certain policies were apartheid-like, and I agree. Correct me if I’m wrong. Certain policies in America are apartheid-like, too. Also, if memory serves, it was only in the last few years of his life that Tutu stopped being offended by such comparisons and started making them himself. Nelson Mandella never said it was equivalent. Correct me if I’m wrong. I agree Palestinians are oppressed people. I disagree with the Lemmy Zeitgeist about who has led them to oppression and who maintains it.
In any event, one thing Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu agreed on, and I agree with wholeheartedly, is that the cure for Apartheid or apartheid, and for systemtic oppression in all forms, is democratic governance enshrined in a written Constitution with clear minoritarian rights–freedom of speech, assembly, and a right to petition, due process of law, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment–the kind of rights that religious law cannot ever provide because religious law doesn’t have them to give and claims for itself a right to take rights away by religious proclamation, which is antithetical and mutually exclusive to democracy, a constitution, or minoritarian rights.
That is to say that, if your opinion is that Israel-Palestine is apartheid, you must agree that the cure for it as it was in South Africa is democratic governance. If you’re not totally ignorant or brainwashed, you must also agree that the first step to making that happen is to dispose of Hamas and Hezbollah. Can we agree on that?
Shitty liberal democracy isnt a strong enough indictment of what is going on in Israel right now. Theyre well on their way to being another far right dictatorship.
They will have another election soon and can popularly reverse course, right?
I would say that, as people go, as the long arc of history bends slowly toward truth and justice, as human rights are hard won and hard kept, Israel is a diamond in the rough. I’m reminded of the words of Marquis de Lafayette, a rich French kid who joined the military at age 13, on the eve of the American Revolutionary War, which he volunteered to come over and fight, when he said “the good fortune of America is closely tied to the good fortune of all humanity.”
At that time, obviously America still had a thriving slave trade; it wasn’t about what America was right then, but what the idea of it could be, what the ideals of representative democracy could do for human kind.
Realize how crazy of an idea it is, how astonishing it is that in any place in any time, it came to be that there were no kings and the people chose their leaders? Prior to that, the law was literally “the king can do no wrong.”
To even break free of the mental shackles of that kind of dark-ages governing took modern mankind hundreds and hundreds of years, spark to flame, and has been widely regarded as a great idea, having secured real civil and human rights to billions of people. How I see it anyway.
So we should excuse israel because progress is hard? You don’t happen to work in sales or marketing do you?
No and no.
They will have another election soon and can popularly reverse course, right?
In this particular war? Hopefully. There’s a good chance they’ll just get someone more competent to lead it, but I won’t deny that there’s also a significant possibility they’ll call off the whole thing out, which has been disastrous for Israel. But, I don’t see any significant social current calling for peace with Palestine in Israel. Israelis have been feeling many things since the start of the war, but remorse towards their treatment of Palestinians before and after the war is not one of them. So… yeah, not getting my hopes up.
Now the law is “Israel can do no wrong”
Such democracy!!!
Much amaze!!
A rabidly racist Appartheid State founded on 19th century white colonialist values which it has preserved and even strengthened ever since isn’t a Liberal Democracy, quite the contrary.
This has to be the best description of Israel I’ve ever seen. Seriously kudos.
Okay take it up with political science. I didn’t invent the terms.
A Racism so institutionalized that it’s written down on the Constitution isn’t Liberalism and denying the vote to the millions who used to live there (and some who still do) by denyng them citizenship isn’t Democracy.
What could make a racism so institutionalized it’s written into the Constitution liberalism? What about a constitution that would allow such provisions to be amended? I agree they are outmoded in purpose and spirit and should be amended. I won’t go so far as to say they existed for no reason or for an offensive reason ab initio. Even if I did believe that, it’s irrelevant to reality: Israel is there and it began as an ethnostate.
The logical conclusion to your position is that you believe Israel doesn’t have a right to exist / defend itself, unless and until it amends the offensive provisions of its constituon. Is that your belief?
I don’t find arguments about who lives there now and who used to live there compelling at all. They fall apart just at face value when the earliest historical record has the land occupied by Hebrew-speaking bronze-age people called Judites. That is to say the land records are a total crapshoot of lands changing hands, peoples changing identities, cultures changing over time, and shifting borders. It’s also futile because, again, Israel is there now, is a nuclear power, and any plan forward must realistically account for this (Israel is going to defend itself).
Suppose Israel amends the offensive provisions, annexes all the disputed borderlands, and naturalizes every person therein with full rights and privileges, but then Iran and others in the region don’t stop funding terrorism at Israel’s borders and don’t stop carefully cultivating a culture of martyrdom and anti-western and anti-liberal violent extremism? Are we not right back where we started?
I don’t think innocent people deserve to die just because they happen to not live in a liberal democracy. It’s not like it’s their choice, anyway, but even people who support their country’s regime don’t deserve to be killed for it.
Nobody thinks innocent people deserve to die, that’s what innocent means. Don’t have to deserve it to be killed incidentally, which is inevitable in war, and yet war can still be just.
As an aside, these are not distant, national, state-actor regimes. They are hyper-local partisans, non-state actors who are classified by most of the western world as terrorist organizations, doing things that most of the western world, including the ICJ, considers to be criminal: shooting 1,000 rockets a month as Israeli civilians.
Except you literally think that though. You just wrap it around some BS like “war is baaaad” or “hamas is baaaaad”.
So I guess if war is bad and everything is allowed, the take your example further and say that killing Israeli civilians is “tragic but war is war”.
Don’t spit on my cupcake and tell me it’s frosting.
Uh… You do realize Israel is an Apartheid state committing genocide right now right? That’s like comparing 19th century America to the Ottoman empire, like yeah of course you’re going to prefer the former if you’re not Black or Native American.
