(I just saw your comment, sry for editing my previous one i didn’t know 😬)
Just know that it wasn’t my intention to defend Israel(, obviously?), i said that because it could benefit the palestinian cause.

I came on the subreddit mentioned to understand why they “needed” the west bank, and instead they insisted that it’s the palestinians who want Israel despite the explicit demands of the 1967 borders, and pretended that it’s the palestinian violence that prevents a two-states solution, the YT channel mentioned in the selftext kinda confirm that the situation is perceived in a weird way by the israelis.
I recognize that it’s an overly strange conclusion, i’m doubting myself. Surveys show that 80% of israelis consider themselves the victims in this conflict, so i.d.k., perhaps more israelis don’t understand the situation that we may think. Look at how they speak about security while it’s their colonization of the West Bank and refusal of the Oslo accords that provoke more attacks ?

It’s not impossible that a palestinian operation could be to send a document in each of their mailbox explaining more clearly that the attacks will continue to happen as long as Israel refuses a palestinian state along the 1967 borders with East-Jerusalem, and more explanations.
They probably wouldn’t be able to do this more than once, but at least afterwards israelis won’t ever have the excuse of not understanding what’s happening, and that Israel is responsible for Hamas&palestinians attacks.

But yeah, unironically, stay cautious about the presence of zionists bots/people on the net, like i can’t understand why that popular french account(, banned in the past, obv. by the authorities who else,) has an almost unanimity of comments opposing him, if you look at his posts with dozen of comments, that kind of weird example. I can’t prove anything but these millions/billions spent ought to go somewhere.

(now i’m searching for surveys proving their brainwashing, but it’s probably not necessary)
(Netanyahu won in 2019, promising to annex the jordan valley, which is 30% of the west bank, meanwhile israelis somehow believe to be the victims, and that there’s nothing they can do, or that it’s a convenient question of irrecoverable trust(, instead of security measures), it’s so weird/unbelievable)

I.d.k. how, but that’d be great :

I’ve learned that israelis seem to believe that the Palestinian Authority only have to desire a two-states solution to obtain it(, they don’t realize that it’s Israel who’s blocking it !), at least that’s what they said on the internet, pretending that they don’t obtain it because of violence while reversing the cause&effect.
If that’s indeed the case(, as unbelievable as it seems), then breaking through their ignorance could benefit the palestinian fight.
(Just a thought i wanted to share because it seemed worth it, /r/IsraelPalestine is disproportionately populated with pro-israelis if you have a few days to spend, i don’t rule out the possibility that none were arguing in good faith because it remains an improbable conclusion on my part)

The conclusion, which seems like basic morality towards fellow living beings :

So :

- 1) The Court has jurisdiction to give the requested advisory opinion ;
- 2) The Court agrees to give that opinion ;

- 3.a) Israel must ensure that palestinians have essential supplies(, food, water, shelter, medicine, etc.) ;
- 3.b) It must facilitate all humanitarian relief operations, not obstruct them ;
- 3.c) It must protect medical personnel ;
- 3.d) It must not deport palestinians ;
- 3.e) It must allow the Red Cross visits to detained palestinians ;
- 3.f) It must not use starvation of civilians as a method of warfare ;
- 4) It must fulfil the human rights of palestinians ;

- 5) It must cooperate with the UN and its agencies, including UNRWA ;
- 6) It must ensure respect for UN privileges&immunities, under article 105 of the UN Charter ;
- 7) It must respect the inviolability of UN property, including those of UNRWA ;
- 8) It must respect the privileges&immunities of UN officials and experts on mission in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

On one side, i wouldn’t want such imperfect/corruptible u.n. or i.c.j. to decide for the states, with their thousands of rules, it’s too dangerous(, but i still desire a handful of world rules, and a world army[1]).
On the other, by choosing to reject for decades the palestinian ‘offer to live side-by-side’/‘justified demand that the Holy Lands don’t only belong to one abrahamic religion’, Israel is digging its own grave, and i hope that it will be given some area of lands in the west after its warranted destruction.

Also, Francesca Albanese new report reveals how states actively enabled Israel’s oppression of palestinians.

[1] : Since it’s also linked to Venezuela, and any other country wishing to follow through, i’d like to develop.
This world army could only intervene in two cases :
- if a state refuses to pay the tax required to maintain that world army ;
- if a state invades another(, this only deals with overt operations, the covert ones being treated by some ideally incorruptible international tribunal)
That army would never be able to intervene for civil wars, or alleged genocides against separatists(, especially if we assume that a tribunal can only confirm covert operations and not stop them), or any other cases, i suppose.

Well, i.d.k. if i’m missing cases.
That world army is sent for each natural disaster to help the local population for free, as long as the state concerned agrees.
And there’s a case for retrieving individuals responsible for grave crimes abroad if they won’t stop acting.
It’s worth thinking about deeply before creating or joining a system that won’t allow secession/‘refusing to pay the ensuing tax’, hence sacrificing the possibility of disunity for the benefit of ensured diversity/security.

The link with Venezuela and its communes is that a nation could implement internally how it imagines that a world government should be to obtain the most unity and the most diversity at the same time. If leaders indeed do not follow, they just haven’t found yet how to experiment successfully in their new approach, and sanctions clearly don’t help.
However, like palestinians for israelis, they may benefit from informing americans of the reality of the situation somehow ; if advertisements are forbidden, then an illegal campaign in mailboxes, or on the internet, or by calling, bots as well since everyone’s doing it. It could cost billions each year though.

The telegram link is censored in France because our universal value is freedom of expression, but Hamas is saying that it gave every body at its disposition, so it respected the initial agreement :

As well as the final one :

https://x.com/caitoz/status/1978210555061301697

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/08/middleeast/israel-hamas-dead-hostages-return-intl
https://x.com/AJABreaking/status/1978678807445078181

If Israel has a sincere pressure from the u.s., and listens to its population(, here also,) more than its far-right which doesn’t care about lying, then it may not end up like the false ceasefire from january to march.
However, attacks won’t cease if there’s no two-states implementation, there’d be no reason to.

TIL : The first edition was in 1965 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervision_Song_Contest
We promised a higher growth than the evil commies had if they followed our advices(, and i love Jeffrey Sachs but it’s quite certainly multifactorial and we can raise Poland, Israel or South Korea if we want to), yet on the contrary post-u.s.s.r. countries economy was destroyed after following our advices on (perestroïka and )shock therapy.
We(sterners) never perceive it that way, yet it seems factual to state that we betrayed their trust/good-will.

The eleventh edition is already programmed, and it’ll be in Riyadh. Great.

Ukrainians, and perhaps even western ukrainians one day, will regret not to have joined crimeans and the Donbass. They were sure that they chose the winning side, and the “only” thing necessary to convince (most of )them to join their historical ally instead is if they change their mind, and see the East as the future.

Yeah, they love umbrella terms, like terrorism that designated Palestine Action, and the bourgeoisie love stealing from the working class too much to bother with organizations asking them to stop in the name of justice.

Seems unlikely that we’ll see people defending themselves from being anti-fascists though, we’ll see how they’ll spin that one.

It’s already illegal to attempt murdering someone, or to call to h.er.is murder, but as usual the problem is that ‘the future murderers aren’t scared’/‘we’re not harsh/authoritarian’ enough.

What could they do to prevent the next Charlie Kirk from being killed ?
If he was killed solely for his transphobia, then they can either censor anti or pro trans opinions, which would solve the tensions.
The european union(, or at least France, Germany, …,) chose to censor anti-trans opinions, and the u.s.a. would have difficulties to censor pro-trans opinions(, with millions of americans already identifying as trans), so perhaps that if they love censorship so much then it can only go in the direction of censoring those opposing trans rights.
Since it’s the republican party, they could/would also nuance that interdiction by forbidding pro-trans “propaganda” in public schools and stuff.

What would happen if the situation was reversed, i.e. if a government pro-trans had one of its top propagandists killed by someone anti-trans ?
I guess that the most expected answer would be to use that event in order to pass pro-trans legislation, while increasing its propaganda.
That’s the principle behind false flags, even authentic suicide bombings lead to a reaction ‘opposite to what the killer’/‘identical to what the government’ wanted.
In this case though, it’d be difficult as previously stated, and it’s probably not only about transphobia, since there’s Luigi Mangione, attempts on D.Trump, threats to E.Musk and others.

My answer would be to avoid mass surveillance and censorship, because that’s what the terrorists want according to our lies.
Instead of censoring the extremists, give their representatives a platform on television where they’re destroyed by the truth, with enough time to prepare their arguments while knowing in advance the questions, and against someone ready to make concessions, and all the time in the world to discuss, it’s a pity that political opponents only “talk” with each other once in a while on t.v. instead of constantly hanging out until they exhausted what they had to bring to each other[1], that’s not how it should work, in many ways.
A website that’d expose the multiple point of views(, in multiple forms,) is also long overdue, wikipedia sucks to learn about a subject and there’s no real alternative(, even l.l.m.s), but that won’t be considered a serious solution.
Banning leftist zones of the internet may work since democrats are also anti-communists so won’t be at risk of censoring the republicans in return. I’m actually surprised it didn’t already happened long ago, but i guess that the bourgeoisie’s ownership of the medias was already enough, and it’s only now that Internet changes the old rules.
But yeah, if the real problem is the spread of anti-capitalism in the american youth, then Internet still doesn’t feel mature enough yet to find some kind of relatively common truth through debates, but at least do it orally on t.v., after many hours/days/weeks in private(, or not privately but on twitch/rumble/youtube/…,) until a change of view is reached, and without choosing the worst representatives of the left. It won’t happen but that’s how it should be, such that people like Charlie Kirk would have been forced to change their mind(, i.m.o.,) after a long-enough discussion.
Either more discussions or less, i suppose.

[1] : Debates could also lead to predictions of results from a local economic experiment, helping to settle the dispute in this regard.
When it can be applied, a law should also be accompanied by a prediction of its results, cancelling it if its results are below a certain threshold(, e.g. aid to companies in exchange for jobs, safety laws in exchange for a diminution of the casualities, …). It’d give further meaning to the already existing assessment of a policy, being clearer about our objectives.
I’m not sure if it was the book “on socialism”, but a book by John Stuart Mill has him discussing ideas from Louis Blanc, and concluding that we just have to conduct experiments, i loved that conclusion and make it mine, some bourgeois do care about the common good more than their own, and are ready to see what’d benefit the most people. Others don’t and everyone thought they won in the recent decades.