You’re right. It looks like I misread the article, so deleting it.

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.

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’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

@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 don’t think that’s really the point. The point is that Israel is killing civilians including children, not soldiers.

Unfortunately, these are just articles that claim stuff, they do not include any actual and/or current researches. This is why they use terms like “trusted source”, or urge the reader to worry about something, instead of providing evidence and let the reader decide how to feel about these findings.

Also, they come from the mouthpieces that Zionist propaganda uses. Remember the debunked beheaded babies claims, or the weaponization of sexual violence claims, or the human shield claims - to name just a few that were covered by these media.

Still, thank you for taking the time.

Could you please share a link supporting your claim that doesn’t come from a zionist propaganda machine?

Ok, no link. I’ll go to another point.

You try to present arguments against Hamas by talking about ISIS. ISIS and Hamas are not interchangeable words, and Hamas is not ISIS.

Also even if I don’t speak any variation of arabic it is well known that words can have different meaning in different places in which the same language is officially spoken. We have many examples of english speaking people that use the same word differently, like very differently.

So what are you really trying to do?

I see the publisher of the above is Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Could you share a link in relation to how they perceive zionism?