Yeah, I see what you mean and on top of that you would need to pay for it.

That’s why I added in the description a link with instructions on the free tool designed by Amnesty International’s Security Lab.

Unfortunately, I can see only 3 paragraphs of this article. Even in the archived version.

Due to your comment, I could assume you are involved in more direct actions. If that’s the case, more power to you!

Still let’s keep our eyes on the target. And the target is not the people you try to make fun of.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I suppose, one could argue that Arab countries could have applied efficient diplomatic pressure for a two-state solution if they cared enough to resolve this - decades ago. But I have the impression this would be only part of the story.

Another part is related to the West. The bottom line is that the Zionists are given weapons to commit a genocide in Gaza Palestine, and sustain an occupation for over 7 decades. This is related to the fact that Palestine is not recognised as a country by the US, Germany etc. As long as the traditional colonisers don’t sign these papers they will keep sending military equipement without repercussions internally or internationally.

Not too sure what you mean.

According to wiki 146 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states have recognized the State of Palestine, including the ones you mention:

• Egypt recognised Palestine 18 November 1988
• Morocco on 15 November 1988
• Algeria on 15 November 1988
• Saudi Arabia 16 November 1988

Relevant podcast, transcript included:

Breaking Down Sudan’s Struggle: What the World Is Missing

“This war is not a civil war, it’s a counterrevolutionary war against civilians,” says Sudanese organizer Nisrin Elamin.

I mean, the war in Sudan precedes the genocide in Gaza by six months, and we didn’t get much coverage then. I think in fact, the movement in solidarity with Palestinians has opened up the space for people to want to know more about Sudan.

I find this article to be to the point. Copy pasting a part of it.

Yet even as fires, floods, and heat waves become noticeably worse, Democrats and Republicans are further apart on the science of human-caused global warming than almost any other issue. Some observers have noted that the resistance to accepting climate science might not be about the science at all, but what attempts to fix the problem might entail. An experiment in 2014 found that Republicans who read a speech about the United States using environmentally friendly technologies to fuel the economy, versus a speech about enacting stringent environmental regulations and pollution taxes, were twice as likely as other Republicans to agree with mainstream climate science. In other words, it might be easier to just ignore a problem if you don’t like the proposed solution.

“When you make this shift from having an opinion to understanding the concern that underlies the opinion, it’s really a different kind of conversation,” Barish said.

The approach is reminiscent of “deep canvassing,” an outreach method developed by LGBTQ+ advocates that involves listening to people’s worries without judgment and helping them work through their conflicted feelings. Personal conversations like these have been shown to change people’s minds, with lasting effects.

I’m really sceptical of AUR winning the elections.

Looks like you got this right! Btw if you find a relevant article that you consider interesting, could you please share in this community?

I’ll try to put things into some historical perspective, as briefly as I can.

NATO was supposed to be a stabilizing force against the Soviet Bloc. During the cold war that was the rational.

Some claim that it was a tool to confirm and maintain US military hegemony and I tend to agree with this take. After approx 1993, through its interventions this started to be more and more obvious, especially to those living in the global South.

My source for NATO supporting Israel come from NATO’s site. Here are a couple of examples:

NATO Secretary General: “Israel does not stand alone”

Or “indirectly” by claiming in a joint press conference by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken

that we continue to believe clearly that the allegations of genocide are without merit

To my knowledge Chamberlain is pretty famous for his misjudgments. Anyways, thanks for answering my question

Honest question: has the USSR or Russia ever attempted to invade Canada? I only know that Canada had sent military around 1917 to fight against communism (well, what is called this way) but I don’t know much more on the topic.

Arguing against NATO for the reasons they state just means more people will suffer like the Palestinians do.

I don’t know why you say this. NATO has been supporting Israel, not Palestine

Very interesting links. Still, my understanding is that in this context privatisations and investments are not referring to the same approach.

@MicroWave@lemmy.world a gentle reminder. Please do try to keep count of how many articles you post in this community per day.

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.

I agree with you. Even after taking into consideration that a conviction will create fascist narratives like those mentioned in the article and most probably more of that kind.

I agree with what you say. Also about the headline, it was the one that was suggested from the “Generate title” thingy - so I just changed it to what is on the actual article.