What have you disliked about their gaza coverage?
And yes, for an American decision, I used American politicians. It'd be pretty silly to do otherwise "Oh my God, a majority of politicians did not to protect the right to abortion in America, bizzare!" Lol.
Edit: I'd also point out I am neither British not American. Unsure why this matters but it seems to be a thing for you?
If you have to reach two decades back and your gotchya is a choice that most mainstream newspapers and politicians backed, well, I think that says more about your pre determined beliefs on the Economist than it does about the paper but to each their own?
(And of course, if you have a better media bias checker, you might suggest it to the mods at c/politics as it's the one they use.)
Are you actually comparing Odessa to the Confederates? That's a real decision you're making?
Edit: trying to understand this take... Are you perhaps confused and thinking Odessa is part of Russia?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/
But yeah, "Boo this newspaper for being one of the most credible and unbiased around! I hate it when reality conflicts with my preferred narratives!"
Except the Ukrainians in Odessa who speak Russian and feel they are Ukranian, fuck those people.
Odessa is not Donbas, it's a unique impressive area with its own history.
Edit: By I can see both sides, I mean I get the Ukranian fury at Russia etc. But I also understand that the people of Odessa have their own version of what being Ukranian is and means.
I take it folks saw the phrase cancel culture and downvoted?
It's actually a fascinating article. Odessa has been at the intersection of Ukraine and Russia for ages. Lots of Russian speakers who resisted Russia etc. But as the invasion goes on, people are being attacked for speaking Russian, statues of Odessa's most famous people torn down etc. And you can kind of see where both sides are coming from.
It's an issue I imagine almost none of us knew or thought about, if not for the phrase "cancel culture" why on Earth are we downvoting it?
Permanently Deleted
If you talk at all like you've written, I would treat you like a child too.
Maturity has nothing to do with your calendar age.
I just don't think your position holds up under its own assumptions.
First, you require an Egypt that is simultaneously terrified of Israel but also blockades the Strait of Tiran for no obvious strategic or economic purpose. Yes, Israel was a part of the winning side in the previous war but also had significant British and French help.
Yes, Israel was fully mobilized, because Egypt had just crossed a line that Israel said was an act of war. Having neighbours on all sides who occasionally try to invade and murder all your people will also make you more willing to mobilize quickly, especially when about 1/3 of all Jews had just been murdered.
It just boggles the imagination that someone could look at the following facts and say "yeah, Israel started this.":
A) Egypt, against maritime and international law (as brokered by the UN) and the terms of its previous peace deal, blockaded Israel from a major port. Israel declares (as per the terms of the peace treaty and Israel's stated position) that this is an act of war.
B) Egypt then along with several neighbours deploys, along multiple borders, an army that outmans, outguns and outplanes (okay, has air superiority but that doesn't work as well with the pattern!) Israel by a 2:1 ratio and 3:1 in the serious stuff (armour/planes.)
C) Israel on the night of the attack is alone, without allies or material support.
I cannot imagine you are seriously saying that despite all the facts on the ground, the correct course of action for Israel was to wait until being engaged and then just pray that this time things worked out for the Jews? That's just wild to me. "Sorry kids, sure, we saw all those soldiers massing but we really thought the Jews were only due one massacre per half century. Whoopsies!"
Oh neat, thanks for sharing!
I don't actually care about downvotes or upvotes for comments (for posts, I'm generally trying to make communities laugh, so I do like them there to refine my approach etc.)
I'm more just... Well, it's Lemmy, some of the replies are, uhhh, impressive and heartbreaking (not because they're mean, it just makes me wonder about how we win a majority of votes while being associated with some goddamn crazy people.)
Anyway, really appreciate you sharing this, I'll probably use some of these settings!
And just like Poland in 1939, Israel was threatened by an amassing, significantly larger force.
As a lot of Jews died in Israel Poland, I'm pretty sure the costs of waiting until the other side attacks were absorbed, heavily, by Israelis.
I think nuclear standoffs are categorically different, the entire MAD doctrine depends on the impossibility of a first strike.
At the end of the day, Egypt and the other Arab states took a series of recklessly aggressive steps against a rightfully paranoid and numerically inferior opponent. (And it's not like Egypt was seriously threatened by Israel when they started massing with multiple Arab states, the previous war had been fought with heavy UK/French support after the Egyptians again acted pretty recklessly.)
Edit: A country? Crossed it out above as I should own up to a silly typo like that.
These are so good, thanks for making them!
So your position is they should have waited until the massed armies that outnumbered them 2:1 attacked?
That seems like an insane demand to thrust upon a people who had years earlier been murdered on an industrial scale.
I think the logic is that a low birth rate is bad for the state. To harm the state makes one an anti-socialist.
Sorry, missed this amongst a few less knowledgeable replies.
Generally, I understand the Arab states as the aggressor in that.
The Israeli attack was a first strike but happened with multiple armies deployed along its borders.
It's been awhile since I read about that war but my memory is that someone (Egypt?) cut off a Israel's access to a major maritime route. Israel reiterated its decade long position that such an act was grounds for war. In other words saying "if you do this, we consider a war to have begun."
The Arab states deploy troops and units along multiple Israeli borders. A quick look at total troops available to the new Arab defence pact suggest they outmanned Israel's by almost 2:1, with more than 2:1 and 3:1 advantage in aircraft and tanks respectively. (I admittedly I have no memory of quality of those forces.)
The destruction of the Egyptian airforce is pretty famous in military history and based on those facts, I've always felt the Arab states as the aggressor in that one.
What parts or acts, other than the act of existing, am I ignorant of or misremembering that make Israel the aggressor?
This is simultaneously horrible and amazing.
You might ask if they have the meds in a liquid solution. My cat's on some anti seizure meds, was very tricky about eating around even crushed up pill etc. The liquid solution cost marginally more (less than 5% difference I think) and is significantly easier to give and more importantly, be sure she ingested exactly as much as she should.
Last comment didn't go over well with moderators. To be more polite, I have you tagged as someone with whom it is not worthwhile to engage.
Regards.
I appreciate that! Honestly, it's a little worrying how little historical context folks seem to have.
Don't know why I feel compelled to point it out other than being a glutton for punishment.
Anyway, thanks!
This was the rationale behind America's Japanese internment camps, which in my opinion, weren't great.