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’m really sceptical of AUR winning the elections.

Looks like you got this right! Btw if you find a relevant article that you consider interesting, could you please share in this community?

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

Very interesting links. Still, my understanding is that in this context privatisations and investments are not referring to the same approach.

@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 agree with you. Even after taking into consideration that a conviction will create fascist narratives like those mentioned in the article and most probably more of that kind.

The statement in your first paragraph (that you later try to prove as true) is flawed because it is eurocentric.

Eurocentric does not mean talking about Europe. It’s about having a biased perspective that favors or exonerates western civilisations for crimes they committed. Among other things, of course.

This reasoning sounds very eurocentric. You talk about monetary values - rich, poor, diamonds - without taking into consideration that other civilizations, have other values, and these should be respected. At least as a proof of actual decolonisation.

The issue with colonialism and coloniality is that it destroyed (and still does actually), the way of being of thriving communities around the world to the point they are not able to be self-sustained as they used to be, before the colonisers arrived there.

For me, saying “yes, but I didn’t do it”, is not acknowledgement because you live in a society still profiting of it (btw when I say “you”, I hope it’s clear it’s totally not personal). It’s a matter of coming to terms with that fact and then use it as a starting point for the conversation.

Reparations for what?

So many things to say, but I’ll be super brief.

It’s quite common that people who come from colonial countries, they are taught to ignore that one of the reasons that they currently have a higher standard of living as societies (not as individuals) in comparison to the places their ancestors went and colonised is because they took/expoited/stole/etc the resources from these places, including people. In the process the colonisers also trashed the place, as well as local, thriving communities.

So the way I see things, there are stuff that needs to be acknowledged first. Solutions come after.

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