WASHINGTON—Explaining why the United States would not call on Israel to end its continuous airstrikes on Palestinian civilians, the White House warned Wednesday that a ceasefire in Gaza would only serve to benefit humanity. “We know there are voices across the world calling for a ceasefire, but what everyone needs to…

“We know there are voices across the world calling for a ceasefire, but what everyone needs to understand is that the only people who stand to gain from halting the bombing campaign are people who deeply value human life,”

    • UndercoverUlrikHDEnglish
      32·
      1 year ago

      It’s satire. A genre often used to make fun of the political mainstream views.

      Since the general political consensus in the west seems to be to blindly support Israel, that’s the reality The Onion will be making fun of. If the US government were blindly supporting Hamas instead, you would expect The Onion to criticise that instead.

          • ormr@reddthat.comEnglish
            116·
            1 year ago

            Could be satire but at this point I’m afraid it’s just radicalized cynicism. And I think that’s the reason why some do think it’s not funny anymore. It’s not healthy for anyone to really believe the world is in fact running like the Onion is implying. Yes, countries and struggles for power lead to a lot of atrocities. But in most cases not because of blatant bloodthirst and sadism of the leadership. That assumption is just crass and downright ignores the complicated reality of our world.

            • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.deEnglish
              12·
              1 year ago

              There is no complicated reality about cutting electricity, water, food, medical supplies and fuel from an already impoverished population.

              It is a straightforward crime against humanity. And there is nothing complicated about the continued escalation of the Israeli occupation over the past decade, installing more and more settlers, driving more and more Palestinians off their land, aiding in radicalization and protecting Israeli murderer of Palestinians. Israel is bloodthirsty and sadistic in the way they treat the Palestinians.

              • ormr@reddthat.comEnglish
                11·
                1 year ago

                Well, I don’t think that’s true either. “Israel is” is already giving away your biased view of the issue. I think there definitely is a majority among arabic as well as Israeli palestinians who’d prefer to have peace with each other and prosper. Sadly those sane people are betrayed by extremists on both sides who commit crimes while claiming it’s for the best of their own population, which is clearly wrong and delayed peace since decades.

                If you don’t want to accept these “complications”, fine. Keep your beliefs about evil occupier nation vs poor oppressed freedom fighters. I don’t care.

                My point was that there is imo a difference between satire and cynicism.

            • Aqarius@lemmy.worldEnglish
              5·
              1 year ago

              It’s not supposed to imply that’s how the world is. Swift didn’t actually advocate for eating children either.

            • eskimofry@lemmy.worldEnglish
              32·
              1 year ago

              There’s nothing complicated about kindness and empathy. Sociopaths have successfully convinced a lot of people in this world that it’s truly a uncaring universe where everyone is fighting alone for themselves.

              • ormr@reddthat.comEnglish
                21·
                1 year ago

                I didn’t write a single world about empathy vor lack thereof. I do have empathy with the palestinians who suffer enormously from the attacks. I have empathy for all humans that are suffering. But empathy is not the sole category through which we can judge the actions of the POTUS of any politician. Also it’s hard to tell who is empathetic and who is not. Do you have empathy for the countless Israeli families who lost relatives in the terrorist attacks?

        • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.deEnglish
          18·
          1 year ago

          What are they supposed to take as a balanced perspective?

          There is no satire in “Hamas is a terrorist group that concluded terrible attacks on Civillians.” Everyone knows that already. There is nothing to satirize.

          But the West claiming Israel would make an effort to protect human life and not be deep into commiting heinous warcrimes, that is something to satirize. It is a mainstream talking point that falls apart when looked at a bit deeper and satire is among the nicest angles to do that still.

          The proper angle would be for the signatories to the ICC statute to sanction the US and Israel, end all support and hand over all individuals suspect of having commited warcrimes to the ICC, respectively put out warrants on them and see to arrest them if they ever step inside their countries.

        • UndercoverUlrikHDEnglish
          12·
          1 year ago

          Satire has a deep history with politics and is intrinsically about opinions. It’s perfectly fine to disagree with their stance and views on the conflict, but that doesn’t mean The Onion aren’t allowed to publish satire pieces based on their writers’ world views.

    • kmaismith@lemm.eeEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      The Onion has never been much of one to boot-lick. The only way to believe this is a justifiable military response to terrorism to ignore historical context or believe one of the groups is inherently less valuable than the other; Both perspectives are anti-human.

    • zaphod@lemmy.caEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Who needs Onion stories when you have the full force of the American and Israeli governments, the media establishment, corporate executives, lobby groups, and endless trolls online?