do you think it'll be enough evidence to convince

No, nothing ever will

You cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into

The statement was that Jewish people would not be safe anywhere without Israel

There are Jewish people living safely in many parts of the world, and those people are protected and loved by the communities they live as a part of.

The irony is that the statement was made to Jewish people in such a community outside of Israel. The other bit of irony is that statements like this are further divisions. Divisions that make life unsafe for everyone

al jazeera is a wholy qatari owned propoganda mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis

... yea lol what?

Al Jazeera is Qatari, and so I don't go to them for content about Qatar in case there's a bias. However it's a pretty large organization and they do decent investigative work on stuff happening in South America, Africa, & Asia. New organizations pick topics they think the readers want to see, and so in Canada (and likely the US) there's usually little to no coverage on stuff in these parts of the world. Al Jazeera puts out decent investigative pieces and documentaries about these places.

TLDR: Al Jazeera isn't unbiased, and I avoid them on certain topics. However I DO go to them for other stuff. It's definitely not a "mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis [sic]"

What happened in this article is a bad thing:

had his Facebook profile deleted by Meta 24 hours after the programme Tip of the Iceberg aired an investigation into Meta’s censorship of Palestinian content

That is a current problem with Twitter as well:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/08/twitter-saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuses

Saudi authorities illegally requesting data from Twitter / flipping twitter employees to figure out who is posting opposing views. Some of which lead to arrests, torture, imprisonment, and death sentences.

The US spends more than any other country on healthcare, on TOP of what individuals pay for things like insurance.

The reason it all looks so expensive is because of how much money goes to shareholders and corporations. So yep, it could be a whole lot cheaper

That's the thing

Hamas is awful for putting military installations near civilian infrastructure, and the Israeli military is awful for bombing indiscriminately despite their advanced military tech and resources.

We don't need to pick one or the other

I've seen this posted elsewhere, and while it's a valid thing to talk about it distracts from the bigger issues

Others here have explained the difference between someone who's taken as a prisoner (they are being held because of something they allegedly did) and someone who's taken hostage (someone who's held as security for some other purpose). From what I can tell, even Hamas isn't saying the hostages are guilty of anything. It seems like those involved in the situation agree that the terminology is appropriate.

The more important discussion imo are:

• Whether the charges against the prisoners are appropriate, or if there's a history of charges, arrests, and detention without justification or evidence. I think this is the point people are trying to make when they bring up hostages vs. prisoners, but if you aren't specific about it you end up going in circles and arguing about the wrong thing.
• Whether those are being held (both hostages and prisoners) are being treated with respect and dignity. If their needs are being met and if they are being tortured / otherwise suffering unjustly.

There is also some more important discussion around terminology, such as one group being called "women" (implies humanity) and another "females" (more formal, scientific, and a term that's also used for animals).

Well that's one way to see it.

The company has attracted controversy for reports of political corruption, cronyism, fraud, financial manipulation, and exploitation of its customers, Indian citizens, and natural resources.[11][119][13][14][120] The chairman of Reliance Industries, Mukesh Ambani, has been described as a plutocrat

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliance_Industries#Criticism_and_controversies

8 subsections for 'Criticism and Controversies'

The "funding" was confirmed by him from a past speech. Funding is in quotes because it wasn't all direct funding, and that particular speech was about him signing off on a transfer of funds from someone else to Hamas. But the underlying motivation is still accurate because... that's what he said the reason was. He said he wanted Hamas to have more funding so they would rise in power and keep the people divided.

The rest of it is stuff that can never be proved in favor or against unless you can read minds. However, it seems more than likely if you take into account the wider history of him, his party, and the region.

On the other side of this you have years of massive protests within Israel by Israeli citizens, and ongoing criminal and corruption charges against him and his associates within Israel.

A violent war would help him, and that's not a conspiracy

Even if it wasn't intentional

• he directly stated in a speech that he approved funding transfer to Hamas to help them grow in power to keep the people divided

• they moved soldiers away from the border to the west bank to help with settlements

• as this article suggests, they had a lot of warnings

Those 3 points alone should be enough to send him and his party away, and until that happens (and until Hamas is also removed from power), that region won't see peace.

We need to let the legal system do its job, and for both Likud & Hamas to be removed from power through LEGAL MEANS by the people they say they represent.

I agree with that Hamas needs to go, and with the general idea in this article, but we could use a better source for the story

In what seems like the slightest of signs that the BBC has decided to veer away from its near-constant anti-Israeli narrative, it conducted an interview with [...]

What even...

Another aspect of this is when western media and politicians are hesitant to call out Netanyahu's administration right now, despite so many Israeli people wanting him gone and months of massive protests in the country.

As for Ireland, they've actually long been different from other European counterparts about Israel/Palestine in both public opinion and government policy. The reasoning given is that they felt a shared sense of struggle against a powerful neighboring regime early on, and that helped them focus on the human rights aspects of the issue

I agree people should have the right to burn it.

What's important I think is that burning ANYTHING that people like / consider culturally important is going to make them upset, regardless of what the contents actually are. People absolutely shouldn't get violent over that, but I don't like how some comments (not yours) on these threads are fanning the flames to the conflicts. Hoping for things to escalate just to prove a point is... a bad look.

This next bit is opinion on the burnings: I don't think the burnings are that productive and they don't get much of a meaningful dialogue. Instead they just escalate tensions, deepen divisions / resentment, and when it happens it undermines the goals of the entire thing.

That's not the point of the recent discussions, which are around if it should be legal. I guess I'm trying to say "it's legal, but the act still harms everyone involved"

related example: Burning the Canadian flag is a valid form of protest, and it's legal to do / should stay legal. However, it's usually not productive

Could the bigger issue be that him and his party are inflaming the conflict in order to hold on to power and avoid prison?

Likud and Hamas need each other to exist. The party doesn't have a future if there's peace, and now more than ever they benefit from more conflict. That's part of why they were ineffective during the initial attacks by Hamas, the other being they moved troops to the West Bank to support settler initiatives there.

But time for that is yet to come, right now war is going on and bigger issues need dealing with.

This is the bit I have a problem with because that's the exact rhetoric he's using right now. He's said it himself, he'll face responsibility but only after the war. He's also said the war will be long.

It's pretty easy to see what he's doing here

Policies and direct funding

They've openly bragged about funding Hamas in order to keep the Palestinian population divided and prevent any kind of formal government from forming.

Hamas and Likud/Netanyahu need each other to stay in power. Without them, the people in the region may actually move towards peace.

Not too experienced with it but my understanding is:

1. RD caches files. You aren't torrenting directly, but rather you ask for the file associated with a link, and then download it directly

2. Pretty sure you can travel all you want. It's only a problem if two locations are using it at the same time?

3. that should be fine, but check their site for a list of approved VPNs

Yep, news sites also post about Canadian's killed or harmed in Gaza

https://london.ctvnews.ca/london-ont-doctor-trapped-in-gaza-volunteers-at-hospital-urges-entry-of-medical-aid-1.6599751

CTV News has its issues, but they do report on both

There was also this from CBC, which is generally better for coverage

Canadian shot in Gaza says he was 'clearly marked' as a doctor (CBC)

I'm not American and not the commentor, I'm observing from far away.

I agree, people should vote for the best possible candidate. Even single issue voters. The alternative is worse for this single issue. If I was American, I'd vote strategically like people on this thread are saying.

However

There are Americans that had friends, family members, and colleagues killed in this conflict, and they can't stomach going to the polls and voting for Biden after how he's acted throughout this conflict. I won't hold it against those people for not voting.

I can't even imagine what it would be like to have that happen and be told "go vote for him anyways". As true as it might be, it's not my place.

More than that, the focus is on a Leader and administration that is opposed by the majority of Israeli people

I saw a comment saying that both Hamas and the Netanyahu administration need each other. It's the only way either stays in power

Both aren't good for their own people, and both need to go before we can get peace in the region

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources. Overall, we rate Reason Magazine Right-Center biased based on story selection that favors Libertarian positions and High for factual reporting due to mostly proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.

Huh, good to know while reading the article. Would be nice to have a better source though

What about now after thousands of people have been killed in bombings, is now a good time to call timeout or do we wait another round?

A ceasefire goes both ways, and it stops more innocent people from dying on any side. This weird "oh they should be able to get some revenge" line is so fucking stupid and it's surprising that officials and news anchors are repeating it.

Ehhh, letting a protest devolve into chaos and violence will only cause more protests/chaos/violence afterwards

A lot of people are arguing over specifics of who said what, which random social media post included what, what might have happened, etc.

The point that's being missed is that spreading unconfirmed information as fact is wrong, and it's not ok to use it to justify other atrocities.

All the innocent people harmed in this conflict deserve justice, and that information will only come with time and proper investigation. There's no benefit in running with a report right off the bat, and we should be cautious about any leader / news agency doing that because there ARE groups here trying to take advantage of a crisis.

This isn't specific to any side with this conflict, nor is it with this conflict in particular

Which parts of it?

I don't think Netanyahu orchestrated it if that matters. Same idea as Bush

We should investigate when leadership benefits from a tragedy. We should investigate the decisions that allowed a tragedy to take place. That's how we prevent future tragedies

How about we don't bomb things based on ideology, even if the ideology is atheism...

It's a bit ironic to call out the issues with organized religion, and then go "I'm ok with bombing the buildings of those I consider 'other' "

Sorry, I will highlight the important bit

Removed from power through legal means, by the people they state they represent. Removing either group with violence will beget more violence. A new entity with the same ideology will fill the gap.

Hamas as an organization has its own problems, and they share a lot of the same issues as Likud. They both hold on to power through violence and fear.

atheists give you slack for being agnostic

I find that to be really odd behavior tbh. One of the issues with organized religion is when a group shuns or hates on someone for their religious/ spiritual views. That's also something that can happen with atheism, even if it's not really seen as a "religion".

Just be accepting of other people

This isn't an endorsement for Trump or Republicans who aren't much better, and rather I wanted to add this since I don't think the other comment was focussed on the important bit.

1986:

Joe Biden says that Israel is the best 3 billion dollar investment the United States makes, and that if there were not an Israel, the US would have to invent a one to protect US interests in the region.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FYLNCcLfIkM

Don't endorse the channel, don't know anything about the channel, I googled for the C-SPAN clip

And a more modern example with a legitimate source:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/10/26/remarks-by-president-biden-and-president-herzog-of-the-state-of-israel-before-bilateral-meeting/

And I — I’ve often said, Mr. President, if there were — if there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent one

I don't think this discussion is just about Lemmy

I agree that Lemmy (+ Reddit and other forums) by design are for anonymous accounts.

At the same time, things like Twitter / Facebook/ Instagram are more for personally identifiable accounts. I want to see photos from my friends on Instagram, not random people. I get the random people photos on Reddit/Lemmy

It's different use cases. I use my real name on Mastodon and PixelFed, and I use this account on Lemmy.

Could we get a new pinned comment for this. Some of this is our of date now and it would be nice to discuss.

Apps, interfaces, browser extensions, scripts

And what was the time window for them to do that?

That's a good tip

Yes that's true, bad wording on my part when trying to talk about how much things should actually cost

This shouldn't be a controversial take either. Even WITHIN Israel, the majority of Israeli's want Netanyahu and his administration gone. There were massive protests over months over the years of corruption. There are criminal charges filed against him and his family. Right now after the attacks, there are widespread calls for his resignation and an investigation into why the response to the initial attacks were so bad.

Given all that, it doesn't make sense for any world leader to continue to support his administration. Especially if countries are meant to be allies of the Israeli people.

Isn't that the other side of the truck, which does have it?

We do need more information to get proper justice, but in the meantime we also need things to quiet down so things don't just keep getting worse

End of the century is so far away lmao. We'll see a lot worse than a poor economy by then. Even financial costs of environmental issues will be felt long before then.

People don't care about what will happen to them in the next decade, companies don't care what will happen to them in the next quarter. We need to highlight the changes that are real and immediate too

Edited to add a word

We'll likely know what happened with time and proper investigation and while I hope for justice, I agree that there's a precedent of that not happening.

That's the idea behind it, but it causes more harm to that cause than whatever the gains from it are. Other forms of protest/raising awareness are more effective in the long run.

While I don't know much about the specifics of "culture is trying to force change in areas where people don't want that change", my gut says that the vast majority of people already oppose those changes. An inflammatory 'burning' protest isn't helping much.

Another example that comes to mind are the different types of climate protests. A lot of the public already supports positive changes. So when certain climate groups block roads or access to hospitals, while it's a loud and clear message, it might hurt the cause more than it helps.

Could you explain more about how the "statement is one sided"?