Sundial

Uhhh..smooth? What's chunky tea?

If it's a unique event then I read the article. If it's just something like a cabinet pick, a nation's response to another nation's actions etc. I just rely on the headline.

What in the past 13 months that has happened makes you believe the Democrats were holding the Israelis back?

The escalations we're going to see over the coming months were going to happen with a Republican as President or Democrat. The past 13 months has shown Israel can get away with virtually whatever they want. They were never intending on stopping regardless of the outcome of the election.

The worst is when it's dark. Visibility goes down so badly.

Because they can. The objective of any company is to squeeze as much profit as they can. It's more lucrative to offer tiered services where you have to pay extra for no advertisements so they do it. If they realize enough people are leaving because of it they will reverse it.

Well it's not like Biden/Harris actually tried for a ceasefire. There's really not much change other than the quiet part being said out loud.

I see where you're coming from but at the end of the day "Pro-Palestine" implies that these people are only protesting it for Palestine, and not the genocide. If the situation were reversed where Palestine was committing a genocide against the Israeli people then these people would not be "Pro-Palestine". Remember, a lot of people around the world think that Palestinians want to ethnically cleanse the Jews (which is 100% not true). They use this as an excuse to justify what Israel is currently doing. This is what I meant by saying it has an implicit bias. It's a very polarizing situation and the media is making it worse by labelling everyone either Pro-Israel or Pro-Palestine. We're meant to believe that by picking a side you forsake the other. Which is not the case for a lot of people.

Personally, I don't think the commenter was wrong to point it out. This isn't an even conflict and Israel is not only attacking Hamas. "Pro-Palestine" implies you're choosing a side in this conflict and allows people to form a bias. Anti-genocide showcases exactly why the majority of people are against the war.

That's more of a case of trying to control the narrative then using a non-inflammatory headline. "Pro-Palestine" creates an implicit bias for a conflict and you'll read it in a certain way depending on your viewpoints on the conflict. The media does this a lot especially for a topic as loaded as this. That ones a really good example of it since the Israelis in Amsterdam were doing a lot of bad shit that prompted a response but all headlines just labeled them as "soccer fans" while they labeled the other side as things like "rioters". It's not about being inflammatory, it's more about trying your best to remove these implicit biases.

My wife and I have pensions plans. We won't retire for another 35 or 40 years but that's the plan.

The West Bank is not off limits, it's had incursions regularly. And Israel has tried to annex it in the past and was stopped by Trump, funnily enough. I guess we'll find out if they can convince him this time. Don't think for a second that the West Bank is some sort of off-limits zone. They'll annex it when they can. Just like they will with the Golan Heights and all their other occupied territories. It's how colonies function.

PLO, Hamas and any Palestinian are not in any way expected to respect Israel's sovereignty or current borders. A 2 state solution will lead to nothing but more divisiveness and create more tensions. It's ironic how we in the western nations like to preach about how we are all equal and things like religion and race don't matter. How this is one nation and we are all equal. And then we turn around and preach about some kind of ham-fisted 2 state solution for another country halfway across the world to resolve a conflict that we enforced on them. Also, PLO does recognize Israel's right to exist. You know since they have a gun to their head and were told accept it or else.

Those 2-3 million Palestinians are being killed and starving to death because of Biden's spineless inaction. Not Trumps. Biden has paid for 70% of this conflict so far. Biden has allowed Israel to ban UN envoys and agencies such as the UNWRA. And all the other stupid bloodthirst crap that I'm too lazy and tired to write down that we both know happened. Don't pretend that Biden or America had any intention of saving them.

I'd like to remind you that this 44K number is confirmed deaths only. Actual deaths are expected to be much higher, in the hundreds of thousands. Israel's onslaught has not slowed down. Only the ability to report it has. All infrastructure including healthcare and their ability to dig through the rubble has been destroyed and journalists are not able to actually go in and report anything because Israel is killing them all in targeted assassinations. Don't delude yourself into thinking they've slowed down.

Harris didn't have to override Biden. She just had to take a firmer stance. Biden dropped out last minute due to his unpopularity. This should have been a massive sign that Harris needed to diverge from his path and make her own. But she didn't, and Biden's unpopularity weighed her down. On this topic and others.

A lot of Americans could have demanded that Biden and Harris to do more. You wanting to do more is irrelevant when you just accept it. You were too afraid of demanding more from your leaders when you had the most bargaining power out of fear of promoting Trump and in the end you handed Trump the white house, the senate, and congress. Because Democrats settled for mediocracy and wanted to appear as moderates when running against a fascist wanna-be dictator.

I'll say it one last time. Harris had no intention of saving the Palestinians. That entire demographic was written off as an acceptable casualty in the name of international politics and foreign lobbying. She couldn't even admit to say there was a genocide, but only that Israel has a right to defend itself. And then her VP nominee openly says that Israel has a right to expand it's borders. She would have been better than Trump on virtually every other topic, but this one there is very little difference.

We've been going around in circles for some time so I'll refrain myself from responding to you if you choose to. It's clear neither of us are going to convince the other of anything. Just a note for the future, it'll help if you didn't reduce someone's viewpoints as being childish or that they know only the basics when they've actually just pointed the series of events that led them to the conclusion they've articulated. I know you mean well but you just come across as condescending and dismissive.