Us sanctioning iran: “FUCK EVERY MAN WOMAN GRANDPARENT AND CHILD, OVERTHROW YOUR GOVERNMENT IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT BITCH”
Us sanctioning israel: “using satalites we have pinpointed 4 individuals in the west bank region and will enact targeted sanctions to curb behavior, thank you and god bless”
You have to admit it is an interesting tactic. First he makes all people who are pro palestine hate him and now he also makes the people who are pro israel hate him as well.
What scrambles my brain is he won’t even do the most basic shit. Like okay Gazans are starving because Aid is being blocked. Why aren’t we tying our weapons deliveries to the flow of Aid?
Even if you believe the IDF is the most moral military on the planet (laugh, snort) this is an obvious measure to make sure there isn’t a famine. And the IDF could have pretended they did it willingly if they had done this in December when we knew it was a problem!
But nope. Is there a Biden pee tape? What in the actual hell is going on?
He scratched the back of the Jewish community enough to be able to argue for their vote. Now he’s got to contend with all the people that actually don’t want The US to support Israeli genocide against Palestine. Politicians be politicking.
We cut off UNRWA at the mere accusation they had some employees that were involved, not leadership or the organization at large.
But we continue to support Israel through what amounts to hundreds of credible accusations and statements by their leadership showing this is on purpose.
To clarify, I don’t believe that going to war in response to terrorism is the right answer, but to suggest the side that initiated the war is being genocided because they are losing is really ridiculous.
Right, nothing is happening. There is no Genocide in Ba Sing Se. Just 27,000 dead Hamas. And the IDF is magically making sure food only gets to innocent civilians which is why dastardly Hamas babies are all over the internet being hungry.
Why aren’t we tying our weapons deliveries to the flow of Aid?
Because the point of the weapons delivers is to kill Gazans, not save them. This isn’t a bug, its a feature. Genocide and permanent depopulation of Arabs in the Gaza strip is the entire purpose of this military operation.
Is there a Biden pee tape? What in the actual hell is going on?
Biden has been an Israel die-hard since the 70s and he’s only grown more intractable with age.
I’m partial to a fuck around and find out approach. Forced disarmament, dissolution of the state of Israel, a combined Jewish/Arab government is enforced. Everyone is a citizen. It worked for Germany, it will work here too. They don’t get to have an Army or anything again until they prove they’re ready for it.
When you vote for president, you’re not voting for one man. You’re voting on the supreme court, federal judges, heads of federal agencies, regulatory commission members, and much much more. Just want to remind you to also remember that a presidential vote will impact all that, whether you like the main candidate or not.
So he’ll appoint judges that continue the ridiculousness of corporate personhood; breaking unions; abusing migrants; and protecting genocidal criminals.
That’s the thing. You can’t call yourself a liberal while supplying a literal genocide, preventing the free movement of people, or supporting unchecked corporate power.
These were all things that were considered outside even classical liberalism. Much less the alignment of modern liberal vs conservative liberal we’ve had in the US for two hundred years.
This is shaping up to be much more along the lines of Oligarchy vs Fascism. And you know what? They don’t feel that different to the peasants.
By literal genocide I think you mean “cultural genocide” and I think it is fairly immoral and inaccurate to believe that Hamas is a fundamental aspect of the Palestinian culture.
Nope. There’s a ton of war crimes going on, but they all add up to genocide. You don’t get to create a false either/or, and the definition of Genocide is set in international law. Not your head.
Well, no? Genocide isn’t defined as something like, “5 or more war crimes put together equals genocide,”
So I agree with you that you can’t just invent a definition to genocide which is why I find your comment so ironic and I highly suggest looking up the definitions used by the people who will be trying this case.
" the Jews are comitting genocide and the liberal world order is helping them and anybody who questions me is on the payroll."
Just keep flooding my inbox with variation of this and eventually you might beat me into submission. Could it plausibly happen? Sure. I wouldn’t expect it though
I’m trying to make sure that when someone sees a comment of yours trying to deny genocide, that someone sees evidence immediately that you are factually wrong.
Of course, I know you’re paying in bad faith, but here I just have you exactly what you asked for, and yet, you just move the topic of conversation. Good job, sophist.
Tell that to the 10000, minimum, murdered children, you blood thirsty fuck.
I know that they are your last priority.
You’ve made it clear your first priority is defending the nation that murdered them that has a leader literally calling them Amaleks, a tribe that God ordered to be slain to the last women and child.
Go wash the blood off your sophistry somewhere else.
EDIT: Plausible means plausible. You’re literally comparing anyone who uses the word Genocide to Hitler. That implies that someone making that comparison is doing something so implausible that the only explanation is antisemitism. Instead of, you know, believing their lying eyes.
You’re a disgusting propagandist. And you’re not very good at it, either.
Look, I think your heart is in the right place, but being an inept soldier in a propaganda war directed at western leftists.isn’t actually accomplishing anything in this situation.
I’m sure it makes you feel amazing to be a part of though.
" the Jews are comitting genocide and the liberal world order is helping them and anybody who questions me is on the payroll."
Just keep flooding my inbox with variation of this and eventually you might beat me into submission. Could it plausibly happen? Sure. I wouldn’t expect it though.
Giving you the links you asked for when you bullied me by accusing my recognition of genocide as antisemitic is defending myself and pointing out your bad faith.
Did I ever actually accuse you of being an antisemite? Forgive me but there has been so many I’m talking to that I’m trying my best to keep you all straight.
I’m not sure if you are an antisemite, but you are repeating a thousands year old conspiracy so I do need to fully parse through your claims to ensure antisemitism is not happening. I apologize to you for that, but the people who came before you with these claims were essentially always history’s bad guys.
You should want us fully verifying you are what you claim to be before we support you.
Citizens United was voted on 5 to 4. All 5 that voted for it were appointed by Reagan or one of the Bushes. The 4 that voted against were from Gerald Ford, Clinton, and Obama.
Oh dude. That’s just the latest thing. Corporate personhood has been held by both sides for about a hundred years now. The only debate is how far it can go. The only thing Citizens United did was make their donations directly to political figures legal. They were already doing political ads and such with first amendment protections.
So he’ll appoint judges that continue the ridiculousness of corporate personhood; breaking unions; abusing migrants; and protecting genocidal criminals.
Great. So excited.
Where did I say Citizens United? Where did I give any sense that it was only the most recent transgressions and not the shareholder bullshit we’ve been living under for a 100 years?
I expected more serious measures to follow when innocents were burning to death. The white house can be called upon for a lot of things but I think any good in this situation will have to come from Congress.
They get put on a list. They try to enter the US, they get detained. They won’t be able to engage with the American banking system or buy real estate in America.
If you did mean this sarcastically, the three dots may not be enough. As sarcasm often can be misunderstood, most people highlight it by adding “/s” to their post.
“The indivuals”. Four. Four guys. That’s all. Of all the Israeli illegal settlers, a whole total of FOUR are getting banned from buying US properties…which I doubt they wanted to, anyway.
thanks for the clarification as my country is banned from clicking on that link and I’m too lazy to shit my pants on another website.
Even if it’s just lip service to get votes from the left, I’m happy to see the narrative manifesting itself in the white house. they obviously know that voters want.
unfortunately by the time any serious policy would be enacted, Palestine will be gone.
Four people is not doing something. Four people is doing the smallest possible amount so that cheerleaders like yourself can say “Hey, they’re trying to do something” to Muslim-Americans in Michigan.
It’s transparent and doesn’t even do that, though.
All of these things are vastly more complicated than it appears on the surface - to say that they shouldn’t do a thing because they should do another thing is not productive, hey lets just do nothing and be mad about it on the internet guys.
And what does anything have to do with Michigan? Are you a real person?
Yes, I am a real person. Demographic shifts, which are very well known to every political person, have made Muslim Americans a required component of a democratic win in most of the mid west swing states, but especially Michigan.
The Democratic party is starting to freak out because Biden’s explicit backing of a genocide has dropped his support among Muslim Americans from 60-65% into the single digits.
The Electoral map for a Democratic win without the Midwest Muslim American vote is so unrealistic as to be fantasy.
This is why they are doing this. It’s a throwaway token gesture. And the people it’s supposed to appease know it too.
Go pedal your anti-Semitic ‘Jewish people are all members of Israel and any criticism of a white nationalist apartheid ethnostate is antisemitic’ nonsense elsewhere.
The ICJ ruled that Israel is plausibly committing genocide, and multiple human rights orbs have declared Israel an apartheid country.
But, you know what? We don’t need them. Anyone who knows anything about history or war knows that a country that tries to deal with a problematic population by completely cutting of ftheir access to food, medicine, and potable water is committing genocide.
I never said criticizing Israel is antisemitic. I said accusing tbem of genocide is almost certainly anti-semitic, based on tbe fact that it has been every other it eas claimed. If you are going to share the claims of thousands of years worth of antisemites, yoi have to be able to explain how you are different.
You haven’t done that, but i’m willing to give you that opportunity.
But also, i 100% believe you when you say you don’t need the people who actually determine whether something is a genocide to agree with you.
And yet, they still did agree that Israel was plausibly committing genocide.
I did, in fact, explain my criterion, and it is true regardless which country does it, and it is why I say with confidence it’s why Israel is committing genocide. You just glossed over it, because it didn’t fit with your narrative.
If a government deals with a population it feels is problematic by cutting off food, medicine, and potable water to that population, that government is in the process of committing genocide.
Good job devaluing the meaning of the word anti-semitic in your rush to defend genocide.
EDIT: I sincerely hope you never try to eat grass due to starvation because a government is blocking all attempts to give you food. I hope this even though you are actively defending the government doing the starving right now.
When the ICJ makes their ruling and hits Israel with the war crimes they have done but fully expel all genocide claims, are you going to accept their findings?
I will say it a third time for those so caught up in their own jurisdiction of genocide that they no longer have reading comprehension.
Any country that deals with a population it considers problematic by completely restricting access to food, medicine, and potable water is a government committing genocide.
It’s not a hard to understand concept. Why have you ignored this simple criterion that Israel is publicly doing three times in a row?
Stop defending genocide by hiding behind false claims, made in bad faith, of anti-semitism.
Tell me again why claims of genocide are antisemitic when the literal court adjudicating claims of genocide have found that Israel is plausibly committing genocide?
Honestly, if he did nothing it would be a huge improvement. Instead, he’s proactively sponsoring the genocide with his blank-check policy on military backing and endless exports of the latest in mass mutilation technologies into the hands of known killers.
When you’ve outflanked Ronald Reagan to the right, because you cannot conceive of curbing the flow of tanks, bombs, and other killing machines into the country, maybe there’s a legitimate reason you’re being criticized?
Biden (I hope): “Gee, after the election, I don’t have to worry about voters thinking I’m ‘throwing Israel under the bus’, and can do whatever I want. Gee, will I still be a zionist? Or will I follow what my party wants me to do? Here is a hint, Israel.”
Firstly, positive to see more criticism and friction between Israel and US officials, and that resulting in unilateral action against extreme elements of Israeli society. I recognize that international and domestic politics are hard to balance, and its campaign season.
But holy shit this solves nothing. “It’s a start” certainly, but there shouldn’t even be settlers. Oslo II very clearly, with lines on the map agreed to by both sides, set out that the West Bank and Gaza is Palestinian, for Palestinians.
At what point does the US alliance with Israel cost us more than it’s worth, especially when this unlimited support is directly harmful to other regional allies like Jordan or Egypt?
It’s optics, which are important. You can’t demand the US unilaterally solve Middle East peace or nothing matters.
And you (not literally you I just mean people) can’t get mad at “hugging Netanyahu” which also did literally nothing in reality, while dismissing this. They’re both optics. Early after Oct 7th Biden wanted to show compassion for Israel after the attack, now he’s showing that the US is not on the same page as Israeli leadership. Probably part of a top-level pressure campaign, starting small with private critiques, then public critiques, then actually sanctioning some extreme people, maybe next he threatens to withhold aid, we don’t know.
You can still argue the process isn’t going fast enough and you want whatever your proposed solution is, but it’s not ‘nothing’ for the same reasons you mentioned in your first paragraphs.
When the house is burning down you don’t start with the garden hose and wait for the structure to be fully engulfed before allowing the fire department to use just one hose. That’s a fine approach for normal diplomatic problems. But the genocide response playbook is very clear. You need to act swiftly and decisively to protect the victim group. They will be dead by the time normal politics ramps up to the levels required to save them.
Interesting how you used Oslo II and not the failed camp David summit options that Israel tried. Palestine is in an even worse state than it was back then yet still fighting for the same thing.
You also bring this up without any thought of the Abraham accords which is more interesting. Israel might be digging it’s own grave but the US needs them as they are a strategic ally deep in the heart of the OIC block. So people shouldn’t expect the US’s involvement other than support.
Their shit disturbing at every opportunity is probably creating more problems than supporting them fixes. Every time Mossad goes off page and assassinates someone else, they’re making more enemies.
We know it’s because if there was ever peace accidentally made in that area, Israel would be out of a job and hence the money, so there’s no fucking way they’re going to let that happen. So destabilizing the area is in Israel’s best interests.
Huh??? How does Israel lose money if there was peace??? I am curious to hear your opinion on what kind of revenues makes up Israel’s GDP and where instability of the Middle East fits into that.
They had a budget surplus of less than $5b least year, so that money still makes a difference. Not sure if it’s just the usual $5b either right now, I didn’t go digging hard for it, but the data I saw for for much aid the US sends Israel was from before Oct.
US government gives $5b to various US weapons manufacturers who then send weapons to Israel, who then has weapons without needing to spend their own budget money on them, saving $5b.
They might. There’s peace because attacking is too dangerous (what they have now, at least with the nations not attacking them) vs peace because treaties are in place vs peace because no one wants to attack them. That middle one is risky because situations can change fast.
And there’s another angle that questions whether they wouldn’t need weapons during peace for less generous reasons.
So in the ideal scenario where there is lasting peace with open borders and open trade… Why would Israel need funding? If anything the whole region would benefit from this I don’t understand why people think that the country NEEDS instability. They are doing well off as is with these problems and I would bet everything I would ever own that lasting peace would make their situation even more profitable.
Oslo II was signed by the PLO on behalf of the Palestinian people. It’s the most recent document that both sides agreed to, dealing with partition of land. Israel has failed to do what it agreed to and slowly cede back the West Bank entirely - they have done the opposite and taken more land.
Camp David accords was between Israel and Egypt, decided without the Palestinians, and condemned by the UN and rejected as illegitimate by;
Resolution 33/28
Resolution 34/70
Resolution 34/65 B
And yes the rapprochement with the Saudis is a big development towards normalization and stability for Israel, and cements alliances between the region - but Israeli realpolitik is fucking up the juggling act US diplomats are doing.
Sorry I forgot the part where PLO leader Arafat refusing any concessions in camp David was Egypt’s doing. I forgot that the reason the second intifada and Hamas uprising was because of pesky old Egypt not negotiating for them or that the UN called it illegitimate. The part where the entire world was puzzled why Palestinians refused any offers that apparently Egypt was doing, very weird.
Arafat wasn’t a part of the Camp David Accords in 1978, you’re confused with the 2000 Camp David summit.
That 2000 summit fell apart because of a loggerhead over what is fundamental to both sides, and an Israeli negotiation redline hypocrisy - right of return. Arafat may well have been an Arab nationalist who wanted the three no’s forever and wouldn’t sign anything - but then why engage and negotiate at all? Concessions were offered from on both sides but Israel refused to permit those in the diaspora to return to their land, all while funding birthright trips for foreign Jews.
Egypt has a viable country and government, and got the canal back and A SHITLOAD of land Israel had taken. Palestinians were being offered what the US and Canada gave the First Nations after we broke treaty after treaty.
Ah shit you got me i got the words swapped. I meant the summit being the last attempt of a treaty that Arafat didnt even bother trying to negotiate. What i was trying to say was there was an attempt for land swaps and a passage way for peace but the PLO captain shat his pants and decided he wants murder on his hands. Oslo II might have been the last official treaty but there have been attempts to get peace and a 2 state solution since then.
The only reason Egypt even has the Sinai back is because Israel offered it back as a sign of peace after it was captured. Palestinians have nothing to offer. Not even the Egyptians want them back in the Sinai now.
I meant the summit being the last attempt of a treaty that Arafat didnt even bother trying to negotiate.
@febra has addressed this point very nicely in a post which unfortunately is no longer readable. So allow me to quote it because it shows very well how insulting, I’d say on purpose, the whole proposal of Israel was. They just wanted something so outlandish that it was refused outright so they can later say “See we tried but they don’t want to talk!!!”. The whole tactic is very similar to Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia which they specifically worded so Serbia had to refuse it or stop being a sovereign state.
Anyway here’s the post of @febra. It’s a bit long but definitely worth the read to get a better understanding of this very complex situation:
I am sorry to tell you this, but you definitely ought look deeper into the peace accords as they were discussed at the time. Especially the ones at Camp David which were supposed to be the most fruitious and the ones Palestinians “threw out the door”. The Oslo accords were more of a guideline than a clear set of instructions. They were a very loose set of vague directions both sides were supposed to go down on. Before that there were no other concrete accords. One would argue that the Camp David Summit was the closest both sides ever got to making peace. So let’s take a look at that one and use it as a good compass in this discussion.
Palestinians were supposed to:
be completely demilitarized
give Israel the right to send troops to Palestine in case of any emergency (what constitutes as an emergency was never defined)
ask Israel for approval for every diplomatic alliance Palestine would ever make with other countries
have Israeli military bases installed in Palestinian territory
give the Israeli military complete control of their airspace
have israeli military outposts be installed on the border between Palestine and Jordan for a temporary amount of time
give Israel temporary control over Palestinian border crossings (without having a specified timeframe)
give up 10% of the West Bank, the most fertile land in the West Bank, for 1% territorial gains of desert land near the Gaza strip (the land that would be conceded included symbolic and cultural territories such as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, whereas the Israeli land conceded was unspecified)
Israel would keep parts of the West Bank under temporary occupation, without a timespan being given
What constitutes the West Bank was to be defined by Israel and not by international law. Israel defined West Bank as being the internationally recognized West Bank minus all the settlements they had at the time.
As you can see, all of these concessions would never amount to a completely sovereign Palestinian state, and as a result of that these talks failed in the end. To me, it looks like they were designed to fail from the get-go. Nonetheless, they did spawn new discussions and as a result of said discussion the Taba negotiations were born. With that being said, these concessions were in no way, shape, or form popular in Israel (only 25% of the Israeli public thought his positions on Camp David were just right as opposed to 58% of the public that thought Ehud Barak compromised too much). The Israeli prime minister at the time, Barak, facing elections, suspended the talks since it greatly affected his popularity in Israel. As a result of trying to broker a peace deal with Palestine, even a very bad one that was meant to fail as it was, he failed to get re-elected. The highly unbalanced concessions were already considered to be too much by Israelis.
Ehud Barak was from the Labour governments you were talking about, and this is the best Israel could ever come up with.
Trying to paint this situation as it being a level field where both sides did the same amount of wrongdoing is not a fair representation of the history of the peace process.
Since the most promising talks ever, the Camp David Summit, Israel has allowed over 750k settlers to move into the West Bank. A military regime has been installed and forced upon the occupied population contrary to international law. If getting the 30k settlers out of Gaza in 2005 was hard enough and almost caused an uproar inside the IDF, getting 750k settlers out of the West Bank will be straight up impossible without a major conflict.
There will never be two states and I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that this was in majority the doing of the Palestinians. We should talk a good look at all these facts when we start discussing this conflict and use them as a compass.
You can read more on that on Wikipedia if you’re interested in all the details. If wikipedia isn’t a good enough source, there is a great book on this subject by a german professor specializing on the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
I absolutely don’t think any of these propositions are outlandish or even remotely insulting. This was a hindsight problem. Given that we are now 20 years into the future, Palestinians would be stupid to not agree to these if it were proposed again. But that won’t happen because of a multitude of reasons.
Again, all I was trying to say was that Oslo II was not the last time there was an attempt at a 2 state solution. Saying “take back to green line” is kind of dumb to me because that’s no longer in scope of a solution.
“Oh man israel committed so many war crimes since they last gave the Palestinians a bad deal, that the previous deal looks amazing to the war crimes Palestinians are suffering from right now.
But instead of offering the Palestinians the previous deal israel will offer one that is far worse than the situation Palestinians are in right now”.
Yeah why not, that’s how the world works. It’s not like Palestinians are making their case any better. There was relative peace and stability in he area for 20ish years until Hamas decided to shit their pants. Why would Israel want to give them any benefit of the doubt when they are proving themselves to not be trustworthy?
I absolutely don’t think any of these propositions are outlandish or even remotely insulting.
When you look at it from the perspective of the Palestinians who want their own country with the sovereignty this entails, it absolutely is insulting. With those limitations they would be little more than a puppet state of Israel. Not only another state but one they have serious grievances and a bloody history with. There’s no way they could accept this. Israel knew this very well!
I was ready to make a post on how the blockade didnt exist until Hamas took over and why but I would be interested to hear it from a Palestinian perspective.
I saw last night that Biden might be considering labelling them as sovereign. I feel like this would be a giant double edged sword for them. If Palestine becomes it’s own nation and Israel was forced to open the blockade that would be great for Palestinians. If Hamas still decided to attack Israel at this point then the IDF would have justification to attack even harder.
Not even the Egyptians want them back in the Sinai now.
That is an extremely problematic view. It reminds me of the Évian Conference where Hitler was arguing that “no one wants the jews” since the US, UK, and other countries refused to take in german jewish refugees, and thus “the final solution” was spawned. It’s an extremely dehumanising view that ended up in genocide. Please refrain from repeating such opinions.
Besides that, the Palestinians have a long history in Palestine. I don’t understand what you’re hinting at with “wanting them back”. Back where? They already have a home.
You misconstrued what I said. I meant they don’t have anything to offer either Israel nor Egypt. Even if they wanted to negotiate again, they don’t have anything going for them. Don’t twist my words to fit some other topic.
The do explain why you said “they don’t want them back”. When have the majority of Palestinians come from the Egyptian part of the Sinai peninsula? Since you’re obviously taking about this “back” it implies they must come from there, right? And please do explain what that message is hinting at or implying. Why would it even matter if someone “wanted them back”?
Let me put it this way for you: Do Europeans want the Ashkenazi Jews back? Does that even matter? Can you see how out of place this sounds now?
Why are you guys harping on one sentence… All I meant was that Palestine has 0 friends here. They have no leverage yet they want fucking Oslo II to come back like if the last 20 years was a bad dream.
Because you’re clearly showing your true colours. There’s no point in having a genuine conversation with someone that talks in such a dehumanising manner.
My true colors is that Palestinians fucked up? Where am I being dehumanizing? I am just pointing out that Oslo II is not now nor not ever going to be a solution unless Gaza start shitting gold. Green line is a distant memory.
Tbh, if you don’t want people to misunderstand the things you say, then you need to start saying things with your chest. Stop posting inscrutable and reactionary blandities and start posting clear and intelligible opinions supported by as many facts as you’re able to muster. Lemmy will be a better place if you do :)
Wow so I don’t play along and you hit me with the “reactionary blandities”. You can confront what I said rather than spout off. I’m sure you have some great points to cover. I don’t particularly like being made a scarecrow but please educate me.
The point that I’m trying to make is that your comments are so nonspecific that it is impossible to “educate you” for the same reasons that it is impossible to nail a cloud to a wall. For example, in your first comment, you say that it is “Interesting how you used Oslo II and not the failed camp David summit options that Israel tried” but you don’t explain why you think it’s interesting or why they failed or why you think they should have succeeded but didn’t or any other jumping off point to give others a chance to agree with you or rebut you. You just said something bland and vague and impossible to pin down. How could anyone possibly agree or disagree or even have a discussion about a statement as generic as “I find this interesting!”?
Ummm all I tried to say was that it’s unfair to use a temporary solution (Oslo II) as the metric. I find it interesting that you can’t understand that. Do you want me to elaborate on why I find that interesting or do you want to address why the green line is still in contention? You seem to be an expert at deflecting.
Ummm all I tried to say was that it’s unfair to use a temporary solution (Oslo II) as the metric
So say that with your chest! Say what you believe clearly and concisely exactly like you just did, explain why you believe what you do, and do it in a top-level comment without someone having to prompt you twice to do it. If you want bonus points, provide relevant citations for your claims.
That’s how you make your posts corporeal rather than cloudlike. You have to put yourself out there and make your position known, and if you’re going to do that then you might as well take the time to come correct
You are pretty patronizing lol you came into this conversation not saying anything with expectations. I am not trying to debate lord like the rest of you guys. I generally write here the same way i talk. I am not trying to win debates. If you have any more suggestions, my suggestion box is right here 🗑
I honestly dont care what you guys think of me. That might be the difference between us. Not going to tiptoe every engagement because im afraid I might not have enough value to add.
You went this whole way just to tell me my position isnt strong enough as if this were my dissertation. While you are here you can atleast bring an opinion forth. Or do you need to look into the research on that first?
This isn’t progress, this is a scam. The four people in question are already in trouble with the IDF or police, they’re basically just some random street thugs.
It’s literally just a piss poor attempt to gain support for elections, nothing more. They pull this typa crap all the time in every 3rd world country so its not exactly new or surprising.
Add comment