I know this almost certainly going to go down like a lead balloon (on Lemmygrad of all places!), but as a politician you often have to make nice with people you disagree with, or are even revolted by, especially if they are the leader of your party.
It’s like how you can’t call out your boss at work every time he does something awful because you really want to stay in the organization because you see it as a way to do valuable work.
Edit: please don’t bother to engage in further dialogue. I’ve been banned so can’t reply. Ciao!
Unless your follow-up sentence is “and the revolution is starting now, here’s your kalashnikov,” then the point is moot. Both presidential candidates, and the broader American public, support the genocide in Israel. The only way you’re going to influence any change in that is by tearing down the entire institution.
If you aren’t willing to die in a glorious revolution though, your options are to abstain and hope you don’t give the country to a fascist who wants a genocide at home; or bite your tongue, vote for Biden, and work on grassroots organization to destroy the DNC from within.
Think of it this way: Palestinians are able to see Americans aren’t all mindlessly supporting genocide. Hamas is important, regardless of what you think of them. What they say has weight among Palestinians, and it’s important that they know we are on their people’s side.
Doesn’t really matter what you’re comfortable with. The fact is that the Al Qassam brigades are the main force of resistance against the genocide in Gaza.
Why? Edit: just realized somebody already asked. Do want to know though. These things are important, we can’t be being vague about important matters of solidarity.
If I had to guess, the original commenter is probably concerned that somehow this will give the US state more reason to crack down on the demonstrations.
As if them simply existing isn’t enough reason but I’ll wait for Muzark to weigh in if they ever do.
Paywall removed. Additionally, here is another article that claims that is an incorrect quote(see the notation at the bottom of it). Dehumanization is a prevalent tactic in Israeli propaganda tho.
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.
Overall, we rate The Conversation Least Biased based on covering both the right-center and left-center politically, as well as covering evidence-based topics. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to excellent sourcing of information and a clean fact check record. In fact, The Conversation is an IFCN fact-checker.
Detailed Reporting
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH
Country: Australia
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
History
Founded in 2010, The Conversation is an independent, not-for-profit media outlet. Academics, edited by professional journalists author articles, and freely available online and for republication through a creative commons license. The Australian website launched in March 2011, and has expanded into editions in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2013, United States (U.S.) in 2014, Africa in 2015, France in 2015, Canada in 2017, Indonesia in 2017, Spain in 2018 and Europe and Brazil in the 2020s.
In 2016, The Conversation’s FactCheck unit became the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of only two worldwide accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the U.S.
Read our profile on the Australian government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
The Conversation websites are held by the not-for-profit educational charity owned by The Conversation Trust. The Conversation is funded by the university and research sector, government, and business.
Analysis / Bias
In review, The Conversation is covered by a charter of editorial independence. The authors must be academics or researchers. Authors have final sign-off on their articles and complete statements that disclose potential conflicts.
The articles reviewed on the US Conversation website demonstrate the use of minimally loaded language such as this: Why the US has higher drug prices than other countries. Like most on The Conversation, this article is thoroughly sourced from credible educational and media outlets such as Commonwealth Fund, New York Times, HHS.gov, and Kaiser Health News.
In general, The Conversation covers a wide range of topics, most of which are evidence-based. Opinions expressed come from both the slightly left and slightly right, with more coming from a more liberal perspective.
Failed Fact Check
None in the Last 5 years. In fact, they are an IFCN fact checker in Australia. Overall, we rate The Conversation Least Biased based on covering both the right-center and left-center politically, as well as covering evidence-based topics. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to excellent sourcing of information and a clean fact check record. In fact, The Conversation is an IFCN fact-checker. (7/10/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 02/23/2024)
Records from Israel’s State Comptroller Office and collated by Buzzfeed.com show that Mr Netanyahu raised around 1m shekels (roughly £166,000), for his primary campaign. Around 90 per cent of this came from the US.
I think it’ll be the “shooting of Franz Ferdinand” moment for the end of Israel and possibly the end of the US’s empire. Even on Twitter you have Israels fretting over what happens if the US gets involved and needs a draft and then it’ll radicalize the youth against Israel in a revolutionary way.
Before Al-Aqsa Flood I thought Israelis like her were 30-40%, but it turns out from various poll data that over 90% of Israelis support the genocide in Gaza.
It’s just like the pro-war fever in the years following 9/11 - in October 2001 there was a Gallup poll that showed support for the war in Afghanistan was 80% in favor and only 18% opposed. Turns out it’s really easy to whip liberals into a blood frenzy, even if they claim “reluctance”
palestine
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.