Aesthetics, plus the seductive appeal that pre-modern, pre-liberal-democratic societies (when the governments were authoritarian, the women were submissive, and the men “were men”) have for reactionaries, incels, and cryptofacists.

A translation of the top caption says

The last Iron Swords survey was conducted between the dates 07-11.8.24 led by the data collection and analysis desk at the Institute for National Security Studies. The fieldwork was carried out by the “iPanel” Institute, during which 772 men and women were interviewed on the Internet and by telephone in the Hebrew language and 200 in the Arabic language, which constitute a representative sample of the adult Israeli population in Israel aged 18 and over. The maximum sampling error for the entire sample is 3.5% ± at a 95% confidence level.

He won’t need to nix anything - Hamas will not agree to a deal that does not actually hold Israel to a lasting ceasefire:

“After being briefed by the mediators about what happened in the last round of talks in Doha, we once again came to the conclusion that Netanyahu is still putting obstacles in the way of reaching an agreement, and is setting new conditions and demands with the aim of undermining the mediators’ efforts and prolonging the war,” Hamas said.

More specifically, Hamas objects to the fact that the proposal doesn’t include a permanent ceasefire or comprehensive Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Source

All this talk of a ceasefire deal is a PR stunt that allows the US to pretend like it’s trying to make progress while still funneling weapons to Israel.

Shame you’re being downvoted, but you’re right. While Maduro’s regime is certainly autocratic and corrupt, the US has been interfering in Venezuela for decades in order to gain access to its oil reserves (the largest in the world).

This article in The Intercept is a good overview of the history, which includes two failed coup attempts.

Any claims that this latest ploy is being carried out for the sake of “democracy” should be viewed with the utmost skepticism.

Not just in the 80s - US government actors and proxies have tried to overthrow the government in Venezuela twice since then - in 2002 and in 2020.

Then there’s also the crippling effects that US economic sanctions have had on several countries in South and Central America, which has led to the deaths of thousands and many refugees fleeing those countries. The surge in the number of people trying to cross the US-Mexico border is in no small part driven by the US’ own policies on Latin America.

Several genocide scholars seem to be convinced on the matter, though:

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/what-we-are-seeing-in-gaza-is-a-repeat-of-auschwitz-says-genocide-expert/3202869#

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-11-19/israel-hostages-gaza-bombing-civilians-genocide-holocaust-studies

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/29/1241576419/u-n-expert-says-israel-has-committed-acts-of-genocide-in-gaza

Designating something as a genocide is not a matter of opinion – it’s a legal definition.

Same.

I’ve seen the photos of the aftermath of this airstrike – the bodies of men, women, and children so obliterated that there is no hope of identifying them. The poor souls having to clear the area today have to sort the lumps of human remains into trash bags and hope all the parts belong to the same person.

There’s no justification that anyone can give that would ever justify it, and yet it will just be brushed under the rug by the US State Department, just like the last time.

Just don’t take it too seriously, I would say. Not every news piece from the same source is going to be of the same quality or bias.

When I was on in Reddit I used to do it all the time, but writing everything out, organizing it and including citations etc. can be rather time-intensive.

These days, I’ll leave a quick comment on a post if I have enough time, but nothing major.

I used to be a fan of it, but in the past couple of years I’ve seen MBFC rate sources as “highly credible” that are anything but, particularly on issues involving geopolitics. That, plus the inherent unreliability of attempting to fix an entire news outlet to a single point on a simple Left <-> Right spectrum, has rendered it pretty useless, in my opinion.

There days I’m much more of the opinion that it’s best to read a variety of sources, both mainstream and independent, and consider factors like

1. is this information well-sourced?
2. is there any obvious missing context?
3. is this information up to date?
4. what are the likely ideological biases of this writer or publication?
5. What is the quality of the evidence provided to support the claims made in the article?

And so on. It’s much better this way than outsourcing your critical thinking to a third party who may be using a flawed methodology.

30 is way too many. Ideally, you want about 4-5 parties in order to maintain a healthy democracy without getting bogged down.

Either way, the two party corporate duopoly of the US ain’t it.

I’ll add UN Watch to the list.

MBFC rates it as “highly credible” despite it publishing laughably bad hit-pieces on UN officials who openly criticize Israel.

I did a debunk on one of their articles that was removed from this very community due to disinformation, but I’ve posted a screenshot of my critique here for anyone who is interested.

I have another one - MBFC rates a site called UNWatch as “highly credible” when in fact they run trash-tier hit pieces on UN officials who criticize Israel. Their articles have been removed from [email protected] for disinformation.

I debunked one of their articles last month. If you want to see the kind of crap they publish, see a screenshot of my critique here.

This assassination is an assurance that countless more Gazan citizens are going to die. It’s not an either/or situation.

👨‍🚀🔫 Always has been.

Pretty much. Netanyahu never wanted a ceasefire to begin with. My guess is that any talk of a path to a two-state solution or a ceasefire has just been a stalling tactic used by the US to deal with any criticism of Israel’s war crimes. I wonder how long the State Department can keep this charade going, quite honestly.

Of course. Who else would be providing the requisite military hardware?

The slavish display that we witnessed at Netanyahu’s speech in Congress makes it clear that the US is going to back Israel no matter what.

Lol talk about a rhetorical question. Israel just assassinated the political head of Hamas. This should serve as proof that that any talk of a deal or a ceasefire over the past six months has been a sham. This means months or even years of war and thousands of more deaths, which is what Netanyahu wanted all along, while the US argues weakly in support of Israel’s “right to defend itself”.

If you define “good” as 1) a dangerous escalation that could spark a regional war and 2) effectively killing all hope of a ceasefire in Gaza, then I guess so?