483

Israel committing "textbook case of genocide," holocaust historian says (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 10 months ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"We're seeing the combination of genocidal acts with special intent," said Raz Segal, an Israeli historian.

top 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 72 points 10 months ago

you can't genocide if you got genocided, that's the rule, if you disagree you're an antisemite, now please send rockets to children hospital thank you

[-] affiliate@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

1 like = 1 missile

[-] FUCKRedditMods@lemm.ee 70 points 10 months ago

All western news is doing some strong work completely ignoring coverage of this narrative. Absolute fucking disgrace and travesty.

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 63 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You're commenting on a newsweek article, a western news media with a readership of 100 million.

[-] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

There are not 100 million dentists offices. No way that is their readership.

[-] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 21 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They're referring to monthly unique visitors on the Newsweek website. Print circulation was around 100k in 2015. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek)

For comparison (I make no claims it's a good one), the New York Times web site has around 240 million monthly unique visitors. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times)

[-] UnknownQuantity@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Does that include all the visitors blocked by their paywall?

Edit: I'm referring to NYT.

[-] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I only know what I gleaned from quick glance at their Wikipedia page, which says they have 8.6 million digital subscribers. So the 240 million figure includes non-subscribers who can run into paywalls, but I'm guessing the NYT might have some content that isn't paywalled, which complicates getting a sense of their 'reach'. Which is why I said I make no claims that it's a good comparison.

[-] sturmblast@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

and how many of those are bots?

[-] library_napper@monyet.cc 36 points 10 months ago

Everything I'm reading is covering the Israeli war crimes and their condemnation from western countries. And it's mostly reporting from the west.

Maybe don't read for-profit journalism?

[-] masquenox@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 months ago

Everything I’m reading is covering the Israeli war crimes and their condemnation

Oh, you mean the slap-on-the-wrist heckling some liberals in the west are emanating? The Israelis must be shaking in their boots.

[-] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 8 points 10 months ago

It's not a condemnation at all. Look at the wording, it's phrased like whatever happens to the Palestinians is a natural disaster. A flooding or an earthquake.

[-] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 29 points 10 months ago

Yes but have you considered that Arabs aren't white?

[-] masquenox@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 months ago

Depends on which arbitrary definition of "white" you are using. I see a lot of white supremacists pretending that Israel can't be white supremacist because either Jewish people "aren't white" and/or Arab people suddenly "are white" - whatever their pretzel-logic demands in the moment, I guess.