A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
take your pick
Israel violates international laws and has been since 1948, invades its neighbours and commits genocide, and western media still portrays it as a victim.
being persecuted for decades/centuries priors helps shield them from any criticism, because they can claim anti-semitism every time.
The persecution isn't even theirs. Sure they'd likely have relatives affected by the Holocaust of WW2, but these are the the Jewish people who were rich enough to escape it. Actual Holocaust of WW2 survivors live under the poverty line in Isn'treal.
I'll throw post WW2 apologetics into the ring. Can't blame Israel publicly without risking career suicide, both in politics and corporate.
What's with these weird imaginary articles? The media has talked enough about their nukes, western youtube is filled with documentaries and western wiki has detailed info on vela incident and other related information, not even talking about the fact that I, a westerner, learned about Israel's nukes from western media. Idiocy.
As an example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal
Pretty simple. Currently not all nations have nukes, out of those who have, a few have enough to completely destroy a rival nation. This means that the nations with the big nuke stocks are the ones calling the shots as to who should have nukes and how much. Iran being mostly against the US is not allowed nukes, Israel being mostly a US ally is allowed nukes.
This is the unpolitical explanation.
we really should have some deal to allow Iran to have access to nuclear power under supervision
trump departed from that agreement.
We used to have that, Trump 45 ripped it up.
Iran needs nukes to defend itself from a nuclear armed aggressor. Everyone needs nukes for that reason. Greenland needs nukes to protect itself from the US.
Greenland is part of Denmark, which is part of NATO and the EU. That means they technically have UK's, France's, and the US's nukes.
Yeah after ukraine, i don't think anyobe else will ever make that mistake again.
Probability of nuclear war rises with number of states having nukes. It's best to keep that number as low as possible, so I would not think it wise for Greenland to have nukes. It would not be a sin for Iran to have them, though, given Iran's allies aren't exactly offering a nuclear umbrella.
That is the conventional wisdom. Wisdom written by people with nukes who can't stop bullying everyone else.
the conventional wisdom checks out to me. Sometimes bullies happen to be right.
best to keep the number low
Yeah it would be cool if Ukraine was a positive example of what happens when you surrender your nuclear weapons.
How about we all just agree to glass any religious fanatics, especially ethnostates, that get their hands on the things?
We should welcome an Iranian bomb. Honestly, it's what the Middle East really needs to bring it to stability.
The biggest destabilizing force in the Middle East is Israel. They're a destabilizing force because they're an expansionist nuclear-armed power with no hard borders. Their borders aren't actually fixed; they're in a decades-long process to slowly expand them. For those who forget, Israel's MO is to:
Israel has been expanding like this for decades, and there's no end in site. Their immediate neighbors are all to weak and destabilized to resist this process of slow Israeli lebensraum. The people in the Middle East are rightly afraid that they'll be next under the Israeli boot, and they'll find themselves reduced to the plight of the Gazans.
Israel is out of control. It's an expansionist military power hellbent on gobbling up its neighbors. The reason they're able to get away with this is because they have nuclear weapons. No Arab nation can invade them without the threat of being nuked in return. Israel uses its nuclear arsenal to conquer its neighbors.
Another nuclear power is desperately needed in the region to hold them in check. A nuclear Iran would serve this role well. They wouldn't be able to wipe Israel off the map, as that would result in them getting nuked in return. What a nuclear-armed Iran can do is to finally put a check on Israel's endless military expansion. We need powers that can stand up to the Israelis as equals and say, "no. Your borders are fucking big enough. You're not taking one more square meter of land."
As much as I agree that Israel is a destabilizing force and that you have their MO fairly spot on, Israel doesn't seem to be using its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for invasion. They don't have to, they have significant conventional forces with US backing, making invasion nigh-impossible anyway. That's how it went in the past at least with the various regional wars.
I'm not sure an Iranian bomb would stabilize much if anything. Israel sees it as a direct existential threat and will stop at nothing to prevent or disable such a weapon. Iran has also repeatedly threatened to use it on Israel offensively, which doesn't really bode well for peace either. Suppose Iran does lob a bomb at Israel, how would they respond? Or what if Israel strikes first? I don't trust either party to be reasonable and responsible here tbh.
Iran can't use the weapon to threaten Israel as you say, because it'd be an empty threat. Iran can't nuke Israel without getting nuked right back. Israel knows this, so they can continue their expansions just fine.
MAD doctrine prevents nuclear wars from breaking out, but as we have been seeing recently it doesn't prevent conventional wars.
The world ends because a bunch of elderly white dudes want to measure dicks. Yay!
In an oligarchy, corporate media is state media.
Everyone's got them but nobody uses them. So do they really need them or just need to convince other countries that they have them.
not every country has a nuclear arsenal
Why not? Everyone should keep a nuke in their basement just in case
It's my uhh hunting tactical nuke. I use it when I need to blast 40-60 wild hogs in 5 milliseconds
because they’re trying to manufacture consent for a war with Iran
Because then the US any every other IAEA signatory would be obligated to sanction Israel which would be the end of Israel's economy.
No news media dares mention it because they have no proof and would both loose any insider access and get buried in libel cases.
Hahha there is tons of proof, if you use the standard the US used to claim Iraq had WMD and then invade them.
Difference being that Israel actually has nukes and does everything they can for a very long time to stop the IAEA from getting assigned to look at them...
...and Saddam actually let weapons inspectors in, because the only chemical weapons he still had were old artillery shells we fucking sold him in the 80s, ageing and leaking in a few armories that had been cordoned off as hazardous waste dumps.
....
Howabout the fact that Israel has a nuclear weapons doctrine?
That you can find random essays written by West Point grads in 30 seconds of websearching... that are about Israel's nuclear doctrine?
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/israel-samson-option-interconnected-world/
Despite Israel also having a 'nuclear ambiguity' policy?
Despite also Ephraim Katzir, Moshe Dayan, Shimon Peres and Ehud Olmert all actually making public statements that Israel does have nuclear weapons?
That they caused a giant fucking scandal back in the 60s by stealing actual fissile material from NUMEC, a US company that uh, refines weapons grades uranium?
Look up 'Apollo Affair'.
That the CIA believed Israel had working nukes back in '75?
That they conducted a nuclear test in cooperation with South Africa in '79?
'Vela Incident'.
That the French helped them build an enrichment facility outside of Dimona in the Negev, that an unclassified US report released in 1980 concluded its had working, functional capacity since 1965?
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011997288&view=1up&seq=433
...
Why?
Why doesn't the world openly call out this bullshit?
Well it certainly couldn't have anything to do with Mossad and Jeffery Epstein, no sir, nothing like that, definitely not that.
Sorry for the confusion when I said "no proof". I meant "no official sources". Everyone knows Israel has nukes they just have to pretend they aren't for the legal reasons I stated.
I get what you are saying but there are extensive, publically released offcial documents from the US government that the US has been very much convinced Israel has had nukes since the 60s.
What... what kind of ... what can be more official than a declassified CIA document that says 'yeah we're pretty sure Israel has nukes'?
From all the minutes (transcripts) of Congressional hearings about the Apollo Affair, which also had FBI reports and CIA reports and I think the NSA as well?
I am not asking this rhetorically, to just belabor a point for emphasis.
I am asking you: If all this shit doesn't meet your 'official source' criteria... what does?
Its not my criteria, its about what will legally hold up in a US court against an AIPAC or ADL libel case. Remember, we're talking about reasons why news sources don't mention it. Not what I personally think is adequate proof.
Ooooh ok your framework is media don't say due to fear of being sued for libel.
Uh well, that...
Well ok.
If we pretend the rule of law still exists at that level, which it doesn't...
Then uh, all the media has to do is just bring up all this stuff, all these documents, have Seymour Hersh on to talk about it, read the quotes from former Israeli PMs, show the unclassified documents and just always give context and caveats... and then just ask 'Why is nobody taking this seriously? Why do we not have definitive answers?'
Assuming the rule of law as we knew it in say, 2018 existed, they'd be fine. Maybe the ADL or AIPAC could try to sue them, but it wouldn't work.
But this is all moot because if somebody, MSNBC or whatever, did that, today, what would happen is a Scientology style intimidation/terror/ruin your life campaign x100 on everyone something like 2 or 3 direct personal connections away from everyone speaking in that news segment, orchestrated by Mossad.
And/Or, the entire Republican apparatus doing the same. And then directing stochastic lethal terrorism at them, or just fuck you, executive order says you in particular go to CECOT, bye bye!
Or the Supreme Court just makes another completely nonsensical ruling that goes against centuries of precedent and effectively destroys the first ammendment.
Thats the actual reason why no one does this, at this moment.
...
The 'state of Israel' has no legal standing to... sue the US for reputational damages or making false claims.
They would also... in this hypothetical, you know, have to actually prove, in court, that... that they are being lied about.
AIPAC or the ADL would have to attempt to construe it as hate speech. Which wouldn't work in 2018 land where the law and legal system still exist and work and stuff.
MSM has talked about Israel's nukes. Can't remember which channel it was, but yesterday they were doing a comparison between Israel's and Iran's offense & defense capabilities.