- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
Concluding her post, the Academy Award winner called for a ceasefire, writing: “Palestinian and Israeli lives—and the lives of all people globally—matter equally.” “Anything that can prevent civilian casualties and save lives most be done,” she said.
Although some followers praised the Maleficent star for her statement, which had received more than 777,000 likes at time of publishing, others slammed Jolie for refusing to choose sides.
“How did you manage to say so much without saying anything at all?” said Marcelina Maria.
You must log in or # to comment.
Anything that can prevent civilian casualties and save lives most be done
What a world where this is a controversial take.
Seriously. Two things can be true at the same time. Hamas is a piece of shit terrorist organization that needs to go, and what they recently did was absolutely horrific. AND Israel’s aggressive bombing campaign is hurting civilians and like the US did after 9/11, is radicalizing people and helping terrorists to recruit.
We’ve seen this story play out over and over. The only thing that’s changed is an increasing amount of bodies being thrown into the meat grinder.
Probably because it could allude to “Israel must surrender” or “Gaza must surrender.”
The world is a little bit more complicated than fantasy-land tweets from celebrities.
And comments like yours are the reason this world is so shitty. You’re basically taking a very clear and neutral statement and imply that this “could theoretically also be a statement from the side I don’t like!!!”. And that’s lazy at best.
If “don’t kill innocent people” is too complicated, then maybe it’s a you problem, not a world problem.
Calm down.
You should look up what ‘platitude’ means then come back.
If “don’t kill innocent people” is too complicated, then maybe it’s a you problem, not a world problem.
I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
You don’t offer anything to comprehend. All your comments in this thread boil down to “it’s too complicated, better to do nothing”.
And that is lazy or stupid or downright evil, but not the “aloof” take you might think it is. It’s intellectual capitulation.
Alright man, you clearly don’t understand English very well so I’m gonna make the executive decision and block you.
Ironically, that’s exactly your response to this situation: ignore the problem and blame everyone else.
That’s just silly. She picked a side; it just didn’t align with some people’s “us vs them at any cost” perspective.
Good for her for yet again standing up for what she believes.
Which side did she pick even? Different groups can interpret her statement differently, I imagine.
Putting 5 bucks on zionists being mad at her for not supporting Israel’s right to genocide people
Can I collect your $5?
Because it looks like pretty much all of the comments in the article were the opposite take:
“If you’re neutral in situations of injustice, you’ve chosen the side of the oppressor,” said lifeashira.
“Call it what it is a genocide!!” said Afuhana Suria. “Disappointed but then again expected nothing less from the likes of you!!”
“Interesting that even after 3 weeks, you are still choosing to acknowledge Israel before Palestine,” wrote KK.
“You’ve lost my respect,” said A.T, while allyroza commented: “You can now stop calling yourself a humanitarian. Shame on you.”
Civilians.
She picked the side that has no solutions but wants problems to be fixed.
Who has the solution?
We don’t know until the problem is solved, but people who have suggestions are saying more than this person.
Stopping civilian casualties seems like a valid first step, no?
How?
Any sort of ceasefire or halt in the bombing campaign to allow for the stabilization of the civilian population and to give them time to find safer ground seems like the universal first step. The major criticism here is largely the civilian death toll, collective punishment by denying the basic fundamentals to sustain human life, and the inconsistent messaging that’s leading to more civilian deaths. Putting those lives over short term victory goals seems the smarter move for a lasting peace.
I love how not killing civilians is now considered controversial
I think giving platitudes is what people are criticizing.
Saying ‘the violence must end’ doesn’t really mean anything and is just virtue signaling by trying to appear ‘neutral.’
I read the article expecting some kind of hateful comment, and it turns out she was on the side of civilians over Likud and Hamas - which I think is a refreshingly well thought out position. I’d question whether she is really losing fans overall, or if this is just clickbait. Haters are always going to hate, but just because a few people criticise someone doesn’t mean there is a net trend against them.
It is better to lose fans over human lives.
Just because a lot of people are interpreting her statement as supporting “their” side (when it’s a neutral statement about civilians in general), and as a result thinking that the people triggered by her neutrality must be from the “other” side - I’d encourage actually reading the article to see what position was generally the one upset about her statements, as it’s the opposite group of whom many here are assuming.
What else do you expect from the rabid cesspool that is Twitter-formerly-known-and-always-will-be-known-as-Twitter.
Huh. I’ve been calling it “loser Elon’s twat palace”.
You all leave that beautiful woman alone!
