• 5 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle









  • shadysus@lemmy.catoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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).



  • 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





  • 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