#also I barely mentioned Palestine in the original post

[redwolf17]

When did he say it was about Palestine? He said it was about reproductive rights. He said it when it came out. He didn't say it was about Palestine. Stop lying to serve your own agenda.

Like I get it I want Palestine to be free too but making shit up isn't going to help Palestinians (in fact, since it's not true, it's going to make people lose trust in the Palestinian cause and its advocates! You are doing something that is actively going to make people mistrust and dislike us and by extension what we stand for and you don't at all see how that's a bad thing?)

You're not helping. You're actually kind of being a nuisance.

I'm not lying, and I'm annoyed that I'm being accused of lying for correctly interpreting lyrics which are not especially subtle.

Yes, Swan Upon Leda is mostly about abortion, but it is also about the colonization and occupation of Ireland and that of Palestine. Hence the lyrics "empire upon Jerusalem" and "occupier upon ancient land."

Nor am I an outlier in this interpretation. The Genius annotations reference Palestine, as do many reviews of the single when it came out. As the Harvard Crimson notes:

In the last line of the chorus, Hozier broadens the scope of resistance covered in the song, connecting the interpersonal violence of the “swan upon Leda” to the international violence of Israel’s “empire upon Jerusalem.” Previously, the singer has compared colonialism in Ireland and Palestine; in May, 2021, he signed a pro-Palestine open letter that highlighted the similarities between historical English policies in Ireland and Israel’s actions in Palestine.

More recently, Hozier has shared calls for a permanent ceasefire, issued a special vinyl release of Swan Upon Leda to raise money for Warchild, spoken about the conflict on stage at some of his concerts, and shared various insta stories on the horrific death toll in Palestine, as well as a couple charity posts from Irish Artists for Palestine.

Accurately stating views which Hozier has repeatedly expressed in his lyrics and in public statements is not lying, and pushing back on people falsely accusing me of lying is not "being a nuisance."

[samiramohans]

i think its kinda stupid to be mad at gifmakers for gifing pjo and those who rb it. is everyone just expected to do research on every single person involved in something they enjoy before theyre allowed to publicly enjoy it? the actors you mentioned arent even main characters.

so many viewers dont even know the names of the cast and creators let alone their views on palestine. be mad at the fucking president and people who can make a difference, not someone who enjoys a show and runs a blog.

i'm not asking anyone to do extensive research on who to support and who not to. disney is one of the BDS pressure targets, and making sure not to support content created by disney is quite literally the bare minimum an average consumer can do to support palestine. BDS has proven to be effective in ending different companies' ties with israel. people have been posting about how disney is one of the main targets to boycott for almost three months now. and while the call to boycott isn't strictly true, your average gifmaker who's "chronically online" would have definitely seen posts about it without doing any research at all. and mind you, most of the gifmakers i've seen on my dash creating pjo content are the same ones reblogging posts for awareness about palestine, with BDS being one of the most widely known ways to take a stand against israel. this, alone, should be enough for these creators to not engage with pjo content on their public blogs at all.

but since you seem to be in the mood for an argument, i think it's a pretty safe assumption that most of the people engaging with pjo content know that rick riordan authored the original books and he publicly posted about how he supports israel in their ongoing genocide against palestinians on his public blog, which again, isn't that hard to find.

beyond that, regardless of whether or not those actors are main characters or side characters, they are making money based on the success of the show. by streaming, by giffing, by doing any public promotion for the show at all, you are putting money into the pockets of people who support palestinian genocide.

and finally, i can be "mad at the president" but the average consumer also happens to be a "person who can make a difference," so forgive me for having the mental capacity to be mad at multiple things at once.

[wutheringheightsfilm]

My name is Anas Al-Sharfa. Since October 7, 2023, we have been suffering from a brutal war that has destroyed our dreams and hopes, exceeding the limits of human comprehension. During this savage war, we have endured hardships that mountains could not bear. We are facing severe water shortages and a critical lack of food and nutrition due to the blockade in northern Gaza for the past 10 months, preventing essential supplies like meat, vegetables, and fruits from entering. This situation has forced us to eat animal feed, leading to weight loss, various diseases, and a significant weakening of our immune systems.

We also suffer from severe water shortages, often walking nearly 1 kilometer to obtain a single gallon of water, which is approximately 16 liters, barely enough for five family members. As a result of the war, our home and agricultural land, which used to provide our daily sustenance, were destroyed and completely bulldozed, leading to major disruptions in our lives. We have also suffered from repeated displacement, moving from one place to another and from one area to another due to the horrific and brutal bombings.

Additionally, we have been deprived of education and the opportunity to build a future. I was studying to become a doctor to help people, but fate did not allow this as my university, where I dreamed of studying, was destroyed. I have been overwhelmed with thoughts during this war—how will I build my future? How will I complete my studies?

We also suffer from fear and terror due to bombings, fire belts, and explosives. Hospitals, which are the lifeline for every sick and needy person, have also been destroyed. We face a shortage of medicines and vaccines while diseases increase and ravage us, with no solution in sight as there are no hospitals or medical supplies available here in Gaza. We live in constant fear for my younger siblings because they haven't received their general vaccinations, particularly after the widespread outbreak of polio due to the lack of cleaning supplies and the massive accumulation of waste in the streets. The streets are also flooded with sewage, posing a grave threat to our children. My brother suffered from jaundice, battling it for about two weeks with fatigue, dizziness, and other symptoms. It's a deadly disease, and as mentioned before, there’s no treatment available due to the destruction of hospitals and health centers.

We are also suffering from the absence of cooking gas, forcing us to use wood and plastic to start fires, which could lead to poisoning. We've been without electricity since October 7, spending days in darkness, causing immense fear in my younger siblings. This has also made it extremely difficult to charge our phones and batteries for lighting at night. We had to travel kilometers from our home to find places with electricity, incurring high costs to charge our phones and batteries.

Moreover, we have had no stable income since the beginning of the war after our agricultural land was destroyed.

I kindly request assistance for my family so that we can live a better life.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/7fn48y-gaza-palestine

Everyone, you can donate here. This campaign is not vetted, but the images in the post are original and it's donation protected!

[someone-always-cares]

chapter 5, page 63

first - previous - next

[image description: an sac webcomic page. lewis and jade turn on the stairs as schmidt's sparking hand reaches out towards lewis's arm.her hand grabs onto him, the sparks are now gone, replaced by pale lichtenberg figure-like pattern spreading from her hand across his arm. lewis's expression has gone from teeth bared to slack jawed, as he freezes. the colours of the panel intensify into brights and near-neons, the background of the panel is a dark purple spreading over the top panel in a pattern like somewhere between the lichtenburg figure and schmidt's hair. the purplle is overlayed with faint rainbow in concentric circles originating from around schmidt's clenched hand. end id]

there was no update last week due the global strike week. i was originally going to make a seperate post to explain that but I was sick last tuesday and was unable to sit up long enough to make one but anyway.

Please, if you're in any way able to help by donating, or protesting, or writing to your goverment, then please do.

if you don't know where to start one of these might help

i also have a few posts that have these resources and more and i would request that you reblog them instead of this post

[thefanficdragon]

Hello, Tumblr!

- Free Palestine!!! 🍉 -

- I am a Christian, however we must be tolerant to other groups of people. Spread love, not hate. Genocide is NEVER the answer. -

Name: Apollo/Tommy

Pronouns: He/Him

Age: Young Adult

Other socials: Wattpad (@MonsterTommyBoi)

- In my writing, I mainly focus on oneshots (both romantic and platonic) of Pokémon, and Wings of Fire/WoF.

Note: I am a multi-shipper, and almost every ship is valid. However, I am by NO MEANS a proshipper. I don't support Pedo, Incest, toxic relationships, or anything like that. We do not promote that here. The only good representation of proships (in my opinion) is to show what is wrong, and how to deal with that situation. No one should have to go through something like that, so for any person who has experienced it, it is important to write these topics in a reflective manner, and not glorifying them.

Anyway, I wish for everyone to enjoy my blog. Most will be reposts, as most accounts are. However, I may post something about my writing, once in a blue moon. If you are wondering, some WIPs are under the cut.

(Last edited: Sept. 13th / 2024)

(Just to reclearify it for anyone)

As I am a writer, I have many ideas and WIPs/drafts in my head, and here is my current list, if anyone is interested:

- Vaporeon X Umbreon book - (Male Vaporeon and Female Umbreon)

- Espeon X Glaceon book - (Male Espeon and Female Glaceon)

- Shiny! Sylveon X Espeon book - (Was gonna be FxF, but I'm unsure whether I will change the genders or not.)

- Another Pokémon X Pokémon one-shots book. All Pokémon now, eeveelutions are obviously still allowed. ( No humans still, I like my escapism, thank you. )

- Speed X Black fanfic - (After getting back the lore from canon ES and for someone)

- Espeon X Umbreon book which is just " Dogs in Love" - (Espeon is a merciful king, while his boyfriend, Umbreon, commits crimes. They have a Jolteon son afterward)

- Spyro and Cynder X Dragon! Reader (Two separate books) - (As there are no fanfics that I could read, I'm making my own. It's based on the original Spyro games and not Skylanders. Used to love Skylanders, but I would like the originals, please. Also, the reader is either Gender-neutral or Male. Idk.)

- Toothless X Skrill! reader - (The reader is FINALLY gender-neutral, plus, isn't a night fury or light fury. Almost all the other Toothless X readers have the reader as Female. Which is rude.)

- Powered! Starflight AU - (Based on an awesome pmv, which uses the song, RÄT)

- Hybrid! Peril and Sky AU - (If the two twins gained the RainWing traits from their father)

- Darkstalker! Sunny AU - (Sunny inherits everything that her ancestor Darkstalker had, and that bring her down a rocky path.)

- Pokémon Mystery Dungeon inspired! Umbreon X Jolteon book (Both Male. This is heavily inspired by the UxJ animations from mastertrapmon on YT. Not the story, but the vibes.)

- Whiteout X Gender-neutral! RainWing! Reader book? (The reader meets Whiteout somehow, and the reader is immediately intrigued by Whiteout. Anyway, this is also to explore the RainWing tribe during Darkstalker's time, as we still barely know anything even with the guide. I'm very intrigued about the possibilities, especially with the mentions of them making potions.)

- Umbreon X Espeon X Sylveon book - (All three are male. This is inspired by the vibes from the song Solider, Poet, King by The Oh Hellos. The romance will be a slow burn if I decide to keep that in, and not make it all about the action.)

- Winterwatcher or just Winter book - Basically full Winter POV.

- Sundew X Cricket book. - I love this ship a lot. It's not that I hate Window (Sunlow), it's just the enemies to lovers is RIGHT THERE.

[rooksamoris]

before i get started, here's a link to a post i made discussing the sanctions saudi controlled territories of yemen have placed on ansarallah and north yemen, where the majority of the yemeni population live. this master doc has links to support the drc, sudan, palestine, haiti, hawaii as well as yemen.

IM GONNA FOCUS ON THE YEMENI ONE FIRST AND MAYBE COME BACK TO THE REST <33 summer school has me dead yall. for the third outfit, which is yemeni inspired (jambiyah mention WHOOO), id like to mention that yemenis experiment more when it comes to the keffiyeh, and where im from specifically, we call it a mashada, and it is most often worn in various colors and designs. i spent last summer in yemen and i barely found anyone wearing a keffiyeh with the traditional red or black patterns.

most of the ones i saw had floral motifs and were brightly colored. yemeni men love matching their mashada to their thobe or dishdasha. my father owns a bunch of colorful thobes, green, red, blue and so on, and he has matching mashadas for all of them too. its really cute tbh.

the one i most often see is the beige and red mashadas. something like this (ALSO THE IMAGES I USED DISPLAY THE WAY WE WRAP THEM IN NORTHERN YEMEN <333)

plain white or off-white thobes are the most common in yemen, however its not like saudi arabia or the gulf states. in those countries, you will exclusively see white thobes (or at least there wont be many colored thobes. think 1/50 saudi guys at a party might where a baby blue thobe, versus yemeni men it will be more like 15/50 guys might be wearing a colorful thobe). the colorful ones are more expensive, especially if they change textures from the usual cotton or linen, so it can also be read as a symbol of status.

here's a pictures of yemenis to show the diversity in the thobes/dishdasha (ignore the guy in the shirt and ma'awaz.)

there is also the qahtani tribe of yemen (their territories were stolen by saudi arabia man me and my homies hate saudi arabia), who wear beautiful and vibrant flowers in their hair. honestly, like a bunch of saudi south of mecca was original apart of yemen. but im not in the mood to get into imperialism and how the west interfered in our politics with the help of saudi arabia, nor do i wanna get into the fact that ibn saud of saudi arabia was besties with winston mfing churchill.

with headwear out of the way, i'll talk about the ma'awaz/mawaz and jambiya now!!

the most common jambiyas have teal or brown scabbards. the teal ones are tied around in teal cords, while the brown scabbards are usual just leather.

the designs are always very unique and it is common to drape matching prayer beads over the hilt (my dad also has a collection to match with his jambiya lmaoo). since kalim is very wealthy, i recommend going with the all gold versions of the jambiya, to showcase his wealth and status.

the ma'awaz is a piece of clothing you'll see all over yemen, but especially in the coastal cities like al-hudaydah (usa is currently bombing) and aden and so on and so forth. it is often paired with a button down shirt, usually plain due to how pattered the mawaz is. the mawaz is basically a wrap skirt for men lmao.

Kalim's Birthday Fanart

As some of you may be aware already, for each twst character’s birthday i tend to make art of the birthday boy to celebrate, and my plan for this year was to use said art to promote different charities and local stores from countries in need. The next birthday on the list is Kalim’s and I wanted to make it special to promote a lot more charities than usual in a single post for the following countries: Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Tunisia and Yemen (I wanted to include Sudan as well, but I’m not sure if it would be okay to do so given the fact that it’s in Northeast Africa, either way I’ll be making another special art piece focused on African countries for Leona’s birthday but I really want to add Sudan to Kalim and Jamil’s art as well, please do let me know if that’s alright).

My plan for these is to put Kalim in these countries’ different traditional clothing (yes, all of them if possible, I like to put the boys in at least 2 different outfits for their birthday and I don’t mind putting them in more if given enough time), and while I’ve found something in my investigation I also feel unsure of how accurate said information is, as well as the fact that I haven’t been able to find good reference for each article of clothing (most pics I’ve found are low res and I can’t see the details like that). So, after consulting with my sister about it, I decided to make this post to ask for help for this, since I’m not from any of the countries mentioned and I truly don’t want to end up doing something offensive due to lack of information when my objective is to try and bring more attention to what is happening there and hopefully spread the charity links to help the victims.

So please, if you can help me in any way to verify the information I gathered or link me more sources and references I can use (especially if you’re a part of any of these cultures) I would be incredibly grateful!

Notes and List of sites I gathered and consulted under Read More.

Notes:

My plan for Kalim’s outfits based on the information I have so far goes like this:

First outfit: white Thobe w/ embroidered neckline and cuffs + red and white Kuffiyeh/Shumagh (possibly over his shoulders instead of in his head, but I might change it) – OR – Kurdish traditional clothing (sharwall, long sleeved jacket, dress shirt and pshtwen/pshten).

Second Outfit: simple white Dishdasha + Champagne colored Bisht (given his social standing, please let me know if it’s innapropiate) + classic black and white Kuffiyeh/Shumagh.

Third Outfit: Dishdasha w/ blazer + embroidered belt + Jambiya + Shawl wrapped like a turban (colors and patterns not yet decided).

Fourth Outfit: Jalabiya + scarf + skullcap (colors and patterns not yet decided).

I don’t really know if that number of outfits is enough to represent all of the mentioned cultures or if I should add more, so please let me know! I’m also trying to find more reference pictures so that I can be as accurate as possible, so links to online shops that sell these garments also work pretty well for me (preferably, with models wearing them so I can see how the fabrics and layers interact with movement).

Sources I’ve found/consulted so far:

Arab Clothing: The Ultimate Guide | IstiZada

Video: Muslim Dresses Around The World Countries 2022 | Islamic Traditional Cloth For Men | Islamic Updates - YouTube

What is a dishdasha and how is it worn? (custom-qamis.com)

What is the Difference Between a Thobe and Dishdasha? – newarabia

Bisht | Abu Dhabi Culture

Clothing – The School of Abbasid Studies

Home - Nationalclothing.org

Clothing - Kurdish Central

Again, thank you so much for the help! If you also want to send me links of charities whose proceeds go to the mentioned countries, that would be just as appreciated!

[mercurymusing]

Book Review: An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States

Author: Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz

A rambling afterthought typed up during a slow morning taking calls. Cross-posted from Mastodon

It'd be callous to describe it as a fun read, but it was certainly a gripping one? Far from my area of expertise, but I was surprised how many of the basic facts I'd already managed to absorb. My wife has a Public Health degree, and I skimmed enough of her course materials to have a good understanding of the kind of narrative Dunbar-Ortiz builds here. Still, that's a different thing to 250 some pages of direct indigenous perspective.

It's always intensely uncomfortable to realize how many little unexamined attitudes and internalized myths you're carrying around. When I say I already knew many of the basic facts, I quite literally mean that nothing in this book was new to me. Specific facts and figures were a bit shocking in their bare magnitude and unexaggerated horrors, but it was far from my first time seeing them.

And yet. I grew up a military brat, so I've already had plenty of experience untangling instilled reverence and respect and deep personal connection to individual service members from the objective realities of the US military. We were actually stationed at Fort Sill at one point, and visited Geronimo's grave. I'd thought I'd done sufficient reflection on the experience, but I'd only really done so in isolation.

Dunbar-Ortiz frequently makes a point of comparing "the historical annals of the US Army" to actual events. Comparing my memories of the surprisingly small pyramid at Goyathlay/Geronimo's grave, the dusty plaques at the location, and the assorted tourist guide blurbs to even 15 minutes research of the history is stunning in the blatant and subtle propaganda it betrays.

[[Image transcript: APACHE INDIAN CEMETERIES The roll call of chiefs, warriors, army scouts and families buried here include the most famous names in Apache history: Geronimo, whose daring band performed deeds, unmatched since the days of Captain Kidd; Chief Loco of the Warm Springs, who stood for peace; Chief Nana, the original desert fox; Chief Chihuah of the Chiricahuas; and sons and grandsons of Mangus Colarados, Victorio, Cochise, Naiche and Juh and of such noted scouts as Kaahteney, Chatto, kayitah and Martine. Here also lie 12 of the Apaches who were U.S. soldiers and scouts at Fort Sill. Linked with these men in the Indian Wars was legion of Army Greats- General Crook, Miles, Howard, Crawford, Gatewood, Lawton, Grierson, and Leonard Wood. This cemetery on Beef Creek, was established in 1894 by General Scott. Related cemeteries nearby are the Chief Chihuahua plot 1/4 mile north and Baitso plot just south across the road. Scouts Mangus and Doemah and white interpreter George Walten are buried in the Post Cemetery. Fort Sill, Oklahoma]]

The author does a fantastic job of illustrating how much of US American national mythology and military culture is grown out of the genocidal "conflicts" with various indigenous nations. She draws a direct and extremely convincing line between the "domestic" wars of the US's first century and a half and the seamless transition to  using the same tactics and strategies abroad.

(This next bit of unrevised rambling is entirely my own) The most depressing part of reading this kind of work, for me, is the reminder that the white nationalist fuckwits are not entirely wrong, at least in some of their historical claims. From an outside and objective perspective, the US is and always has been a nation founded by, for, and devoted entirely to the land-hungry interests of a colonizing white state.

Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism aren't outdated or abandoned ideas. They're intrinsic components of the national identity. Painting the US as a historically multicultural melting pot is at best revisionism and at worst complete fiction. (Not that this invalidates attempts to better the country and lives of its inhabitants, or to actually promote the ideals it claims to follow.)

This book is, after all, focused entirely on the indigenous peoples' experiences with the US. The author has no interest or responsibility to convey the experiences of other peoples or groups who would claim themselves part of the US, no matter how they may have been mistreated or silenced by the majority.

On another note, and this will be an even less original or particularly clever observation than any of the preceding, I was repeatedly struck by the parallels between the historical relationship of frontier settlers and US official policy and Israeli settlement policies. The author never specifically mentions the Israel/Palestine conflict (again, something outside of the scope of the text). She does, however, remark on the similar "covenants" of the origin myths of the US, Israel, and Boer-controlled South Africa.

Final-ish thoughts:

There's a palpable sense of anger and sorrow woven through every page. Stronger, though, is the thread of determination. The author is very clear that the survival of native peoples and cultures is an accidental miracle the same way that their disappearance was a historical inevitability. That is, not at all. Both were and are active, ongoing struggles. Existence is resistance, and so on.

[sole-cuore-amore-e-droga]

Tel Aviv 2019: Straight outta Spain to Eurovision with whole lotta fun

Dare I say Operación Triunfo is a little bit of... a Choice?

I mean, you got yourself a format that a bunch of young-aged/teen/late-teen aged droolies follow for the drama more than the music, at least that’s what I suppose it is because it’s one of those singing reality shows where you’re oh so very welcome to follow the lives of all the 20-somethings that were unfortunate to sign the contract of the show, not being able to read all the fine-prints in the contract and later regretting not doing so because things like Eurovision. In Israel. But more on that later.

But this is Espain, and this is the sad state of television that is today - if they like your shitty talent show with 24/7 followship of the contestants, and if they watch that, and if they eat that with a spoonful, chances are you’re going to prolong its post-mortem revival state in order to maaaaaybe attract a new audience and acquire a new shippable couple people will vote “a Eurovisión”. Even if your last couple sucked. And even managed to break up unceremoniously sometime before the 2019 show’s Eurovision final <3 god bless them for finally breaking the chain and breaking the hearts of thousands who were ‘dying’ for the ship. It was never EVER meant to last.

So is it a no surprise that Operación went thriving for another year? Certaintly at least it’s no joy to bear with another amount of subpar desperates from every other corner of Spain, but only because Spain deserves a better NF format. I mean, with these other NF formats we can at least have a variety of artists with their own (or composed by others) songs, and it doesn’t matter an inch whether the public’s big fave gets rigged out to me - as long as it’s just a NF I can get easily over with, it’s all fine to me! And of course OT is also fine for me, it’s just that people are begging for it to get axed for some reason. Maybe because of all the ships?

I don’t want to put too much more thought of what happened in the reality show other than the Eurovision Gala, BUT I seemed to notice something rather crazy. You see, at first we had Natalia (or was it Alba Reche or Sabela even?) heavily speculated as the winner pre-show, but in the end the OT glory was all handed to some Dutch-born boy of Nigerian origin named... Famous. Not shitting you, it is his name. But what’s the saddest part about this? Famous CLEARLY wanted it all to himself just because of Eurovision being included in the contract. Yet his only victory in life is being the best among the rest of these stars that were watched over 24/7. Unfortunately, Mr. Oberogo couldn’t make this out to be in his favour in the Eurovision-special gala, to which the “triunfitos” can attend if they have songs chosen for them in the lineup, and yes he was admitted, but then he was given a SUCH DISAPPOINTING SONG EHMERGERD!!!!!!!! :’(

(lol calm yer ladyhormones, “No puedo mas” wasn’t THAT bad, it’s just that given Famous did songs like “Nobody but You” (yes THAT one) on the show, you’d expect something contemporary soulful, not just blatant radio filler that could have easily been an EYD reject?)

So how did it all happen that the girls were rooted for to win OT, but in the end the one that wanted Eurovision the most won? And how come the one that wanted the Eurovision the most was given a song that paled in comparison to that one song that was performed by someone who was blatantly against going to ESC because “nuuuuu Israel stop hurting Palestine” and that one being favoured to win? AND HOW COME ONE OF THE BIGGEST SHOW’S VILLAINS GOT HANDED ABSOLUTE SLAYAGE OF THE SONGS?? Honestly it’s for the best if Spain is just there to subdue everyone’s expectations, just like they did when choosing Manel (be it because of a corrupt juror or whatever). They did it every single turn of the time this year during OT’s run.

And of course I’ll forever love them for that, as the end result was AN ABSOLUTE FUCKING FIESTA BANGER. Courtesy of Miki (Núñez).

Ngl, the first thing I went in for about “La venda” before listening to it was through this first impression tweet on Miki’s ‘eliminated’ song from the selection, “El equilibrio”:

BITCH HOW WAS SHE NOT READY TO SEE THAT COMING AT HER.

Granted, the sudden start of happy sounds rushing right at me was a little startling, but I was able to cope with it and jam to the song in the end.

I completely adore this one, it’s so powerfully joyful with all its instruments and the Spanish language, the interesting turn of events in lyrics, the incredibly easy probability to sing along to this (LO QUE EEEEERE! LO QUE ERE ERE E!), the authenticity, the cultural roots (tbqh Eurovision countries should be welcome to embrace their culture rather than stray further away from it! also this is why more native languages other than English are encouraged)... mmm-mmm.

And like I said, for some reason Miki was seen as a grand villain to the show, and even if I didn’t follow OT all that much, I was constantly questioning why, and after seeing him eliminated I only wanted to know if people in Espain were rejoicing about it. The against-agenda turned up onto him again when he happened to have the most songs in the internet selection bunch handed to him (THREE!!! Two solo tracks and a duet.), but nothing there was to worry, as instead other favourites were discovered, therefore Miki ended up in the dust for a while. Up until something happened that got him a big surge of votes at the end. Go figure.

Despite all this, I think it’s the right direction for Spain songwise! Me gusta mucho, and not only personally, but also objectively, honestly. Miki’s got a right enough good song for the nation and provided the revamp doesn’t make it crash and burn (yes, the good friend of a Eurovision song - the revamp! It’s happening), it’s safe to say that Spain can stand a chance. Not win, for now, but stand a chance. Yes.

Before I repeat myself some more I’d probably have to add this part for no reason as it came from my Twitter review for “La venda” this time, as I heard songs 1 day before the NF as when I expected the NF to go on Saturday but it was on a Sunday:

BITCH HOW WAS I WRONG. Well mostly thanks to the fact the fanwank-ess of OT ESC Gala actively asked to direct her votes to Miki’s song (Monika Marija teas amirite), but still, WRONG!

Now that I finally composed my thoughts I guess, let’s all go and read the below verdict I’m putting this up for:

Approval factor: I’m giving this a big fat SÍ!

Follow-up factor: Of course I like it way better than “Tu canciYAWN”, there’s no doubt in it :) and after Almaia’s romance advertisement they’re doing a great job by coming back to their great Spanish roots of music, honestly. And it’s better that way than forcing a ship onto a Eurovision 2018 ship, so yeah

Big 5 factor: As of this time Spain lowkey fizzled out with everyone now that a big wave of other faves arised, BUT I don’t think that Spain’s drowning in misery this year, not at all! With right kind of energy of the staging and uplift Spain can totally woo them televoters this time around, making them “lo que ere” their worries away to the sunset. And this is a positive thing - as if juries decide to drown this sometimes and televoters don’t, it will still soar somewhere up high enough in top 15.

NATIONAL FINAL BONUS

Now, I don’t quite think this year’s OT was quite as memetic as I expected, but we still have had some pre-NF gems, just like this:

• “THEN POLKA”. That one moment was also brought up to her on her OT Eurovision Gala postcard.

• and this one contestant’s gloriously accidental butt-shot

Though we did have a handful of these kind of moments on the Gala itself (and surrounding it), such as:

• NF’s biggest favourite to win songwise not even trying. Yes, there are those NF winners which underperform but only because they don’t seem to know better, but did you know that there are THOSE like María Villar who decide against it? Basically, she was one of those opposing against the situation in Israel with Palestine, so out of protest towards all this, she voluntarily went against doing Eurovision in a nation like this by encouraging her fans to vote for Miki the night before and sacrificing any slightest grains of trying with her performance - by barely dancing on stage and not outselling anything vocally. And it worked to some extent, as she came SECOND only, and shortly after Miki won, she spoke out loud that she was satisfied to not have become the victor (I mean she just thanked everyone for not voting her to ESC lol). But you know what, for situations like these I really do love ESC NFs - where everything predictable is upturned by some sort of events like these. I mean, I like "Muérdeme", it’s catchy, Latino-appealing enough (for those whores thirsty for Luis Fonsi and similar fucks who sing in Spanish on English songs these days), has a cool breakdown and what not, but it would just probably bring back another disappointing result from Eurovision much to fans’ dismay, especially if the Tel Aviv (oh wait sorry... for Maria’s case this would have probably been Limassol or Vienna) edition was to bring many bops for this time around that are BIGGER and BETTER than this one. It’s just happening that it’s unfortunate to be Spain...

• Yet again, putting Famous up on here, but of course he was disappointed to not get that win. I know I’m not the right person to judge considering I’m WHOLE THREE DAYS YOUNGER than him, but I’d still tell him he only had RTVE to blame for giving him THAT in the end and putting him through online voting rounds... and speaking of:

• Like I mentioned before several times, there was an online voting round for to pick-pocket the songs that sounded the best out of the demo-ic snippets of a minute or less. Its top 3 was of course dominated by ladies and their own bangers/just likeable enough songs, with poor Famous being 4th in it (and the top 3 is a must on there to be automatically admitted to the show without any higher-ups shuffling the other competitors ‘round later on and toying with their fates). I liked the complete final cut of the Gala for the most part, but boy did they miss out some, like this male laidback-acoustic pop bop “Sale”, courtesy of Damion Frost. I can at least forgive the loss of “El equilibrio”, but this? Nah siree. And yeah I know this whole shtick is a tire, but I like some of it, and I saw a worse track from the same shtick collection qualifying through higher-ups and that’s NOT boding well with me.

(yes of course Manel happened but still)

• Miki joining the glorious wall of epic NF victory reactions with his O face of total cartooney awkwardness <3

• and Eleni Foureira being able to rock a trashbag as a dress during her guest performance of both “Fuego” and her ‘new’ ‘smash’ hit in partially more Spanish than “Fuego” was - “Tómame”. Granted the juxtapose transition was a little too jarring, but hey - 2 songs for a price of 1. Go get them Spanish audience people acknowledging your pop art Elli <3 (also her chitchat with the ESC Gala host about what do you need to do good in Eurovision <3)

At this point I’m too not fucked to remember more of them but I’m really sure I missed a lot of the OT lulziness that happened before the Gala, during and after it (such as Natalia (who also sang one song in the NF with Miki himself) not wanting ESC but still trying better than Maria). I don’t want to be reminded of them, as my review’s as long as it is. But I’m sure someone else remembers, so I’ll let them judge.

[talabib]

Leadership Journey: Obama’s Presidency

From building support for the Iran nuclear deal to conducting secret negotiations with the Cuban government, the Obama administration tried to use foreign policy to do good in the world, despite stumbling blocks such as the hyper-partisanship of US politics and the sometimes stubborn and conservative administration in Washington.

We will also explore some of the difficulties faced by a US government up against Russian-funded disinformation campaigns, and a political culture less and less rooted in respect for facts and the truth.

Obama did things differently from other presidential candidates, offering change and a fresh approach.

When Barack Obama first ran for the presidency, in 2007, he represented something new. For starters, he had opposed the Iraq war when almost everyone else supported it. To many, he seemed like a beacon of hope. He used words that sounded moral, and authentic, at a time when Washington politics seemed anything but.

Obama fought his campaign with a promise of change. From a foreign-policy perspective, that meant doing things that went against the grain of establishment thinking.

For instance, Obama called for diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. The Washington political class saw this – or anything that deviated from instinctive “toughness” toward Iran – as a blunder, despite the fact that Iran was quietly progressing its nuclear program. But Obama doubled down, responding to criticisms of his foreign policy by saying, in a nod to the disastrous Iraq war, that he wouldn’t be lectured by people who had supported the greatest foreign-policy mistake of his lifetime.

In most presidential campaigns, foreign policy is a minor issue, with few votes in it beyond veterans and key ethnic constituencies. But Obama’s campaign wanted to do more. Conscious of the higher expectations placed on an African-American candidate, Obama wanted to prove his ability to handle international diplomacy and the demands of being commander-in-chief. To do this, he embarked on a campaign tour of crucial European nations and the Middle East – an unusually long detour from the standard presidential campaign trail.

A key piece of the tour would be a speech in Berlin, delivered on the site of two iconic speeches from American presidential history – Kennedy’s famous “Ich bin ein Berliner!” speech and Reagan’s speech, “Tear down this wall.”

The speech almost ended in disaster, however. Just hours before Obama spoke, he pondered a crucial line in the speech’s ending that referred to the German word for “community of fate,” Schicksalsgemeinschaft. Double-checking with a translator, he discovered that the word had been the title of a well-known speech by Adolf Hitler!

The line was changed, just in time. And the speech – given to an enormous, cheering crowd – was a huge success. More than his actual words, which emphasized globalism over nationalism, the image of an African-American candidate addressing vast crowds on a historic stage was a powerful one.

Obama’s worldview caused tensions at home, including in his own administration.

Few presidents have had their background and outlook analyzed, and misrepresented, as much as Obama.

Obama’s worldview and background differed greatly from those of former presidents, and from those of the people – typically white men – serving in senior national security posts.

Take his upbringing. He was born in a former US colony, Hawaii, which had a diverse population and served as a link between the United States and East Asia. He also lived in Indonesia in the late 1960s, shortly after a US-sponsored coup that led to violence and hundreds of thousands of deaths – events that were barely mentioned in the United States, but were extremely formative in the region. Obama’s grandfather served during World War II and his great-uncle served in the forces that liberated the Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany. As a result of these influences, Obama grew up with a view of America – of its power and position in the world – that was more complex than that of most Americans.

Obama’s nuanced view of the United States sometimes generated criticism at home. On his first foreign tour as president, he addressed the Turkish parliament. Together with his advisors, he had discussed in advance how to tackle the controversial issue of Turkish treatment of minority groups. Obama decided to reference it through the prism of America’s treatment of minority groups such as Native Americans and African Americans. In his speech, he talked of how, not long ago, his own country made it hard for someone like him to vote, let alone become president.

For Obama, this was an expression of patriotism. In his view, the capacity for improvement is what makes America exceptional. But the speech led to criticism at home – that Obama wouldn’t embrace American exceptionalism, that he wasn’t patriotic and that he was perhaps a Muslim. Among his critics, the foreign trip became known as the Obama Apology Tour.

Obama’s view of the world soon caused tensions within his own administration as well.

When Obama wanted to close Guantanamo Bay, his advisor was called in to write a speech on the subject. At Obama’s request, a draft stated that the Muslim detainees in the camp had been in a “legal black hole” for years. None, after all, had ever been convicted of any crime. But the national security advisers who reviewed the speech took issue with this language and wanted instead to say that the detainees had received more legal representation and protection than any other enemy combatants in history.

Early in his presidency, Obama made a conscious effort to talk directly to the Muslim world.

Mutual suspicion had long characterized the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. In 2009, in a speech at Cairo University, Barack Obama tried to transform that mutual suspicion into mutual respect.

As he prepared for the speech, tensions were high. That was particularly the case for the Israelis, who had lobbied hard over its content. They feared Obama would identify the Israel-Palestine conflict as the root of all ills in the Middle East. In response to this pressure, Obama decided not to visit Israel after Cairo; he wanted to avoid any perception that the conflict was at the heart of the speech. Ironically, he would be criticized for years by supporters of the right-wing Israeli president, Benjamin Netanyahu, for this decision, despite its being made in their interest.

What came to be known as the Cairo speech clearly signaled Obama’s desire to reset relations between America and the Muslim world.

Obama used it to argue that the West needed to re-educate itself about Islam's contributions to the world, while the Muslim world should recognize the universal principles and rights of the West. In preparation for the speech, he reminisced about his time as a child in Indonesia, when girls swam outside freely, never covering their hair. That, he said, was before the Saudis started funding madrassas, or religious schools, and a less liberal Islam took hold. In the speech, he would make a bold case for women’s rights, religious tolerance and government by the rule of law.

By the time the speech was delivered, expectations on all sides were high. Obama greeted his audience with “Assalamu alaikum” – peace to you – and the room burst into cheers and applause. The speech was punctuated by applause throughout. Religious leaders cheered Obama’s defense of American Muslims’ right to wear the hijab. As he invoked democracy, activists shouted, “We love you!”

The speech was a pure expression of Obama’s outlook on the world. Hopeful, optimistic, rooted in universal values, it envisaged the world as it should be. The tale of Obama’s foreign policy would be one of constant struggle to live up to this vision.

For Obama and his young advisors, the Arab Spring was an opportunity to be a force for good in the world.

On December 17, 2010, a story – one of thousands he received every day – popped up on Obama’s advisor’s BlackBerry. A fruit seller in Tunisia, Mohamed Bouazizi, frustrated by the corruption of his government, had set himself on fire. The act had sparked a blaze of protests in the region.

Neither the advisor nor anyone else knew it at the time, but the Arab Spring had begun.

Weeks later, the protests had spread like wildfire to Egypt. The images coming out of Egypt were dramatic. Obama’s advisors watched on TV as the same security forces that had guarded their visit for the Cairo speech suppressed thousands of young men gathering in Tahrir Square.

Obama’s administration was divided over how to respond to the protests. Younger staffers like felt that this was an opportunity to support the positive vision outlined in the Cairo speech, against a backdrop of clearly repressive behavior by the Egyptian government. Defending the government felt impossible. As another communications advisor put it, while watching machete-carrying troops clear Tahrir Square, “How the f*ck am I supposed to call that restraint?”

By contrast, others – Hillary Clinton among them – were much more conservative, arguing that Hosni Mubarak’s government was stable, that protests would dissipate and that a dialogue between government and people in Egypt could be promoted. They were supported by the likes of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who cautioned Obama against supporting the Cairo protesters.

Obama’s young advisor felt this division when he drafted a statement that discussed the rights of the protestors and the need for government to pursue a “path of political change.” When it came back after review from other advisors, every word mentioning human rights and the plight of the protestors had been removed. Someone had scribbled “balance” in the margin.

In private, Obama told friends that his sympathies were with the people and, in the end, he delivered the advisor’s original draft.

Eventually, Obama decided that Mubarak’s attempts at reconciliation with his people were inadequate. The advisor listened as Obama called Mubarak and told him that the time had come for a new government.

But Mubarak held on – for a while. Older hands in the Washington establishment criticized Obama’s stance, saying his young advisors had led him to betray an old ally of the United States. But day after day, protests continued. Eventually, Mubarak fled Cairo and resigned.

This would not be the last time that Obama’s young advisors disagreed with the old guard in Washington.

Obama delivered on one of his earliest foreign-policy promises.

In 2011, in a secluded compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a tall man paced up and down in a courtyard. Unbeknownst to him, he was being watched by US intelligence analysts. As they were not yet sure of his identity, they called him “the pacer.” His true name? Osama bin Laden.

One of Obama’s first foreign-affairs promises had been to hunt down bin Laden – and now, possibly, he could deliver on it. Officials proposed a mission to capture or kill the pacer, or to take out the compound completely. But it was a high-risk situation. No one knew for certain whether the pacer really was bin Laden, with analysts putting it at a 40-60 percent chance that it was. The repercussions of a failed raid based on faulty intelligence could be severe.

Obama didn’t take the decision to go ahead lightly. In the last of what seemed like endless meetings, Obama quizzed his advisors and demonstrated a deep knowledge of the intelligence – how tall the residents of the compound were, how many people lived there, that they burned their trash rather than taking it out.

Days later, Obama gave the go-ahead for the raid. He gathered his advisors in the situation room. The president’s photographer was there to capture the scene. While the seal team helicopters flew from Afghanistan for the flight to Abbottabad, Obama retreated to the Oval Office to play cards, his way of killing time.

On May 1, watching the raid was a tense experience, especially when one of the helicopters grazed a compound wall and had to crash land. But then the phrase “Geronimo EKIA” rang out. This was the code for “bin Laden, Enemy Killed In Action.” “We got him,” Obama said.

Obama made one final decision – not to release photographs from the operation. Obama’s advisors flipped through the collection of photos taken: bin Laden’s bloody corpse; preparations for an Islamic burial, taken from a US ship in the Arabian sea; a final shot of the corpse slipping beneath the water. Obama was firm in his decision not to release them, saying that he didn’t need to put them out there as trophies.

As Obama later said in his address to the nation, justice had been done.

Normalizing relations with Cuba was an opportunity Obama to be proactive, not reactive.

During his time in Obama’s administration, Obama’s advisors had to mostly deal reactively with the messy reality of the world, from handling the legacy of George W. Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to addressing emerging threats, such as Syria. They had little time to help proactively shape the world according to Obama’s foreign-policy goals and ideals.

So Obama’s efforts to normalize relations with Cuba were a welcome opportunity to engage in an affirmative agenda.

In 2013, Obama’s advisors started a series of secret meetings with Alejandro Castro, son of the leader Raúl Castro. Meeting in a remote, lakeside Canadian home, chosen for the sake of neutrality and discretion, Obama’s advisors and Alejandro Castro developed a constructive dialogue and relationship.

After their second meeting, there was a sign that the relationship was working. Edward Snowden, the leaker of US intelligence, was holed up in Moscow Airport, apparently hoping to fly to Venezuela, via Havana. Obama’s advisors told Castro that any assistance for Snowden would make it impossible for Obama to continue working to normalize relations with Cuba. No more was ever said. But days later, Obama’s advisors woke up to reports that Snowden was still stuck in Moscow, as Havana wouldn’t let him fly to Cuba. The Cubans, it turned out, were serious about improving their relationship with the United States.

With the help of Pope Francis, well-liked in Cuba for his South American heritage, an agreement to restore diplomatic relations between the two countries was reached.  

The day before the deal was announced, Obama, joined by his advisors, made the first call to a Cuban leader since the revolution. When Raul Castro spoke, he spent half an hour listing American efforts to sabotage his government over the years. Obama’s advisors passed a note to Obama, saying he could interrupt Castro, but Obama shook his head and said that it had been a long while since Cuba had communicated with an American president and that Castro had a lot to say.

Race was a constant presence in the Obama White House, but not an easy topic for Obama to deal with.

For many Americans, Obama’s election represented a breakthrough in America’s attitude toward race. But while racism would never be far from the surface during his presidency, Obama and his team rarely addressed it directly.

Obama’s advisors regularly received intolerant messages on social media. In private, Obama sometimes displayed dark humor about the subject. Rehearsing for media Q&As, he’d sometimes give frank answers: Q: “Why do you think you have been unable to bring the US together?” A: “Well, maybe because my being president has driven some white people insane.”  But in public, if asked whether racism drove the levels of opposition to his presidency, he’d say no, attributing it to other factors.

On one occasion, however, Obama’s true feelings came through. On June 17, 2015, a white supremacist called Dylan Roof entered a black church in South Carolina and killed nine people. In one day, Roof murdered more Americans than ISIS had in the last decade. Obama privately lamented that he was lost for words and said that he should maybe go to the memorial service but not say anything.

The night before the memorial, Obama stayed up late, rewriting his speech. He wanted to address racial taboos head-on – the historical racism of the confederate flag, and the present day racism of the criminal-justice system. And he wanted to root his speech in the concept of grace.

As he addressed the congregation, Obama fell into the rhythmic style often used in many black churches. He talked of the dignity of the victims, and the grace they showed in their lives. If we can tap into that grace, he said, everything could change. In an imperfect voice, he started to sing the hymn “Amazing Grace.” The congregation, filled with emotion, soon joined him.

Days later, Obama’s advisors found Obama sitting in the Oval Office, reading a letter. “Dear Mr. President,” he read aloud. The writer said that for his whole life, he had hated people based on their skin color, but since the nine people were shot, he had been thinking things over, and realized now that he had been wrong.

There was silence in the Oval Office. It’s a shame that people needed to die for that to happen, Obama said.

Obama didn’t take military action in Syria, despite his “red lines” over the use of chemical weapons.

During Obama’s time in office, the Syrian civil war emerged as one of the world’s most difficult and bloody conflicts. By 2012, the White House was concerned enough about the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria that Obama made a clear statement – any signs of the use of chemical weapons would be a “red line.” Cross it, and the United States could act.

So when reports and images of a deadly gas attack outside Damascus emerged in August 2013, there were expectations that Obama would launch military action. But he didn’t.

The international community did little to help Obama. On a call with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor and the president’s most admired ally, Obama asked for her support for military action. But Merkel argued in favor of a UN Security Council resolution, despite the likelihood of the Russians blocking it. The diplomatic route would take weeks, and Obama knew that as the horror of the gas attack faded in public memory, opposition to US action would grow.

Weak support internationally was compounded by weak support in Washington. A group of Republican Congress members wrote to Obama, setting out a blunt challenge to his authority to take action. Engaging in Syria, in the absence of a direct threat to the United States, and without congressional approval, they wrote, would be a violation of the separation of powers set out in the Constitution.

During his candidacy in 2007, Obama had supported requiring congressional approval before going to war. And he decided that was the right thing to do in Syria’s case. But winning support was hard. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell refused to support action, but would later criticize Obama for not launching strikes. Congressional leader John Boehner said he would support Obama, but did nothing to help him win the votes of other Republicans.

Eventually, Obama was given an out. A conversation with Putin led to an agreement that the United States and Russia would work together to destroy chemical weapons in Syria, and the Assad regime announced that they would give up the weapons, though they’d previously denied their existence. No congressional vote ever took place.The war in Syria continued – and the United States stayed out of it.

Obama pushed through the Iran deal despite strong opposition.

When Obama took office, Iran had the knowledge and infrastructure required to develop a nuclear weapon. By 2013, it was less than twelve months away from producing the raw materials required. The need to stop Iran’s nuclear program was becoming critical.

The administration sought a diplomatic deal to halt Iran’s nuclear activity. But this required congressional approval, and there was strong opposition to a deal. The Israeli government was pushing hard, and groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee would go on to spend roughly $40 million on ads and lobbying to kill the Iran deal.

At the same time, some media outlets were playing dirty tricks. Right-wing website Breitbart published a story quoting one of Obama’s advisors as saying that even a bad Iran deal would be worth making – a completely fabricated quotation. He had in fact said that any agreement had to be good enough to last ten or 15 years. But Breitbart’s story spread on social media and was read by millions of people in a matter of hours. It was pure, and effective, fake news.

Obama’s advisors formed a unit, entirely focused on securing support for the deal in Congress. They called it the Antiwar Room, because its arguments were simple. The deal would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Not having a deal would mean military action.

The unit worked hard to use the credentials of adversarial establishment figures against them. When Scooter Libby, former advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney and one of the key figures behind the Iraq war, attacked the proposed deal, the unit argued that the very same people who’d taken America to war with Iraq now wanted war with Iran.

Gradually, things turned in favor of the White House. Leading physicists supported the deal. The former head of Mossad, the Israeli security service, supported it. Iranian dissidents confirmed that they were in favor too.

The day Obama’s advisors secured their final, crucial votes, arch-neocon Dick Cheney gave a speech. The Antiwar room watched with pleasure as Cheney reinforced their argument that proponents of the Iraq War now wanted war with Iran until antiwar protesters disrupted the speech. Obama grinned. “That was actually kind of fun,” he said.

Obama’s administration was on the losing side of the information wars.

Throughout Obama’s presidency, Obama’s advisors witnessed the spread of increasingly shameless misinformation. Fake news was becoming a serious issue.

Obama’s advisors saw Russia invest heavily in disinformation, and the United States was not well placed to fight back.

After a Malaysia Airlines Flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot down over Ukraine, in 2014, a Russian disinformation campaign kicked in. Russia’s Foreign Ministry held a press conference, proposing multiple, contradictory theories. A Ukrainian aircraft had done it, they suggested, or maybe it was Ukrainian surface-to-air missiles. The theories were repeated in Russian state-run media and flooded social media. Russian media outlets even invented fake quotations, attributed to a US state department spokesperson. The lying was relentless and deliberate.

Obama’s advisors had few means to fight back. His Russian counterparts had control of TV stations and an army of social media warriors who were encouraged to lie. Obama’s advisors had a five-person press office and a Twitter account, and they were prohibited by law from giving editorial direction to government broadcasting.

In 2014, Obama’s advisors examined what – hypothetically – could be done to replicate something like the Russian state-media channel, RT. The project was quickly abandoned when Obama laughingly pointed out that the Republicans would never sign off on a well-funded Obama propaganda channel.

Political attempts to counter Russian disinformation were also flawed. After it had become clear that the Russians had hacked the Democratic National Convention and were meddling in the presidential election, the White House tried to secure a robust, bipartisan statement condemning the acts. But the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, refused to sign, in an act that Democrats regarded as unpatriotic.

Obama was criticized for not speaking out more strongly. But, as he commented privately, people reading anti-Clinton propaganda were unlikely to take his warnings seriously. His view? Russians had found a soft spot in American democracy.

Obama and his advisors were surprised by Donald Trump’s victory.

A few days before the 2016 election, Obama and his advisors were sitting in the presidential helicopter, en route to the White House after a campaign visit, when they received an email from Clinton’s campaign. The day before the election, it asked, could Obama go to Michigan?

“Michigan?” Obama said, shocked. He had taken Michigan by ten points in 2012. This was not a good sign.

Later, Obama found it hard to understand the election result. Sitting in the Beast, the presidential state car, cruising through the streets of Lima on one of his last foreign visits, Obama said he’d been surprised by the result, given the positive economic indicators – low unemployment, cheap gas prices, many more Americans covered by health insurance. Obama asked, “What if we were wrong?” He wondered out loud whether liberals had lost sight of the importance of identity – of the fact that many Americans were skeptical of the kind of metropolitan globalism liberals promoted.

Obama’s advisors had the feeling that they should have anticipated the result. On reflection, they thought, Obama’s own campaign message against Clinton, eight years earlier, had been similar to Trump’s – minus the misogyny. Both had argued that she was inextricably part of an establishment that couldn’t be relied upon to bring about real change. They also felt that Trump’s win was the result of the increasing irrelevance of facts in right-wing politics – a disturbing state of affairs that he and the Obama administration had had to tackle while in office. A solid majority of Republicans still refused to believe that Obama was actually born in the United States. In these circumstances, perhaps Trump’s victory shouldn’t have come as a surprise.

Obama was left even more astonished after meeting with Trump. After a long and friendly meeting with the President-elect, a week after the election, Obama was stupefied. He said that Trump had regularly turned the conversation back to the size of his, and Obama’s, campaign rallies, saying that both men could draw a crowd far larger than Hillary could. He voiced openness to Obama’s views on health care, on Iran and immigration, but almost prided himself on avoiding taking a clear position on any policy at all.

Obama’s final advice on dealing with Trump? “Find some high ground,” he said, “and hunker down.”

President Obama attempted to advance ideals – ideals of universal rights, the benefits of strong, democratic institutions, and of openness and respect. He wasn’t always successful in doing so and regularly had to deal with the hard realities of our imperfect world, for example when trying to intervene in the war in Syria or fight Russian disinformation.

[xclowniex]

Okay so please keep in mind that I have not been aware of the red triangle symbol until recently so my research and knowledge is very bare however,

The red triangle is used by hamas to point out targets in their war footage before they destroy the target.

Hamas has also used the red triangle in propaganda posters to point to point to IDF tanks and the like.

The MEMO says that the usage of the triangle is to urge people to look at what Israel does in the gaza, such as buildings turned to rubble. They say that there are two reasons people are using it, one being due to the videos released by hamas and the second being that the Palestinian flag also has a red triangle. They also say that the origin of the symbol does not matter.

MEMO also claim that Israel lies about things in that same article and has a hyperlink to another page which denies the rape of women during Oct 7th.

Know Your Meme, reports that the red triangle origin is solely the videos of Hamas killing Israeli targets. (Source)

Know Your Meme also has a higher credibility rating and a more neutral political bias rating and has never failed a fact check. (source)

I would first like to acknowledge that it is very sad that a meme history site is more credible about the war than a legitimate news site. It feels like we have slipped into an alternate reality. The hilarity of the the situation does not escape me.

The only other use of the upside red triangle besides its use in the holocaust is use by European politicians against fascism in 2019 (source)

At worst, the upside down red triangle 🔻, is a symbol of destruction of Israel created by hamas in a video game esque way and at best is hamas propaganda to get people to support a terrorist organization. It is very unlikely but still possible that it is being.used to call Israel a fascist country. however it is unlikely that most people in the pro Palestine movement are using it due to itd european anti fascist roots as even the most biased source towards hamas does not mention European anti fascism.

Considering heritage posts linked their reason of use to not mean the European anti fascist movement, we can throw that meaning of the symbol in the trash for them specifically.

Regardless of meaning of use for any specific purpose, it is also taking a symbol used against Jews in the holocaust and turning it to be a pro Palestinian symbol which is disgusting. Not because Palestine is disgusting, but because people are trying to change the meaning of a symbol used in the holocaust.

Please keep in mind that this all came from 5 minutes of research. Know your meme was the first result for me and I have only used their website twice ever for unrelated memes. Anyone who claims to have "researched" the upside down red triangle and continue to use it, have obviously never done their own research and only looked at biased media sites or just straight up support a terrorist organization or want Israel to be destroyed or support symbols from the holocaust having their meanings changed.

hi, i wanted to give you an update on that post of mine you reblogged. heritageposts has informed me that they were using the red triangle in this context: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231123-one-small-red-triangle-palestine-we-are-finally-looking/

i was wrong about what they meant with the 🔻 emoji and i am officially rescinding my previous statement

I am all for fact checking and I would love to believe that Heritage Posts did not mean this particular horrible thing they did.

However, Middle East Monitor (MEMO) is not a reliable source for information in this conflict. If HP is actually using MEMO for news, they should focus on more reliable ones going forward.

There are plenty of other left-leaning sources with more reliability, credibility, sourcing, and transparency.

They have failed several fact checks for misleading and occasionally false information. The publication is explicitly and repeatedly pro-Hamas, and they often omit vital information to skew their stories.

While they are not rated as an outright propaganda publication or as a source of conspiracy theories, they do often cite sources which do and are.

Finally, they are funded by donations. Of course these donations largely come from people who support the kind of reporting that people who donate to them support. They are a nonprofit organization, which is not inherently a bad thing. But this means their interests are not based in journalistic ideals but in political ideology. This is not a reason to completely discount a source, but it is something to keep in mind.

In general, with a topic this intense and with such profound consequences for so many people, I’m only engaging with sources who receive a “reporting” rating of “high” or better and a “credibility” rating of “high credibility.”

I would POSSIBLY consider a “reporting” rating of “Mostly factual” if it had a “high credibility” rating and several extenuating circumstances and reduced media bias to compensate for its lower score in another area.

Leftist sources worth referencing instead:

Forward Progressives

Haaretz

International Policy Digest

Current Affairs

And many others

Personally, though, (for this particular conflict especially) I tend to prefer sources that fall into the central three categories: left-center biased, least biased, and right-center biased.

No news source is perfect or without bias. But this conflict is so fraught that I frankly don’t trust anyone reporting with extreme ideological intentions. And I also don’t want to only read sources that make me comfortable. I am personally very leftist in all of my personal politics and voting. However, I also know that the far left has been more hostile to me based solely on my Jewish ethnicity than anyone else in these past months. Furthermore, I think politicians should be more left, but journalism should always prioritize facts and a full scope of a situation over any one viewpoint. I am the daughter of a journalist. I am deeply in favor of journalistic freedom. And I absolutely do NOT believe in “both sidesism.” Sometimes, there really aren’t two sides to a situation that are both equally worth listening to. There is no alternative viewpoint to “Black Lives Matter” for example that is not deeply racist.

There are not “two sides worth teaching” when it comes to The Holocaust.

But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not so simple. Israel should stop its bombing of Palestine. Palestinians should have full and equal rights. Jewish people in Israel and around the world should not have to live in constant fear or attack, harassment, or murder. There are a lot of extremely valid perspectives from Palestinians, Muslims, Israelis, Arabs, and Jews. And right now, the far left and the far right are weaponizing their ideologies to reduce all of the aforementioned groups to their worst actors. That is not something that will help anyone with regard to this conflict.

Left Leaning Sources

ABC News

Associated Press

Atlantic Media

Boston Globe

The Forward (This is a Jewish source. They had one failed fact check in the last five years, but issued an official correction.)

Human Rights Watch

Institute for Middle East Understanding (This is a Palestinian source and it has a completely clean fact check record)

Least Biased Sources

Jewish Telegraphic Agency (Obviously a Jewish source)

Reuters (this has a Very High reporting rating)

American Press Institute (not only have they not failed a fact check in five years; they have never failed a fact check ever)

The Conversation

Pew Research

Foreign Policy

Foreign Affairs

Sky News UK

Right Leaning

Note: As I stated numerous times, including in this post, I am a leftist. However, something important for American readers of this post to know is that, when it comes specifically to matters involving military analysis of foreign conflicts, a slight right lean in perspective is common and sometimes preferable to leftist idealism. I say this as someone who votes and holds opinions that are about as far left as one can get. However, I also say this as someone with a background in university studies of international politics. Because analysis of military conflicts is often done by those with experience in and understanding of the military, most of the most credible and detailed analyses of foreign military affairs do tend to be more right leaning than sources of equal worth focused on domestic political matters. Furthermore, a leftist tendency toward pacifism (which I share) tends to mean less leftist involvement in military-involved political matters at all. Of course, none of this means there are no quality leftist sources on the current conflict (which I obviously demonstrated by linking to such sources above). I am simply explaining the value of such sources to those who may justifiably be skeptical of anything right-leaning after the hellish past two decades of domestic policies and US-caused violence in other countries.

Note 2: There are plenty of right-leaning sources that received “high” credibility ratings and “high” reporting ratings. I found no sources that had both “very high” credibility and “high” reporting ratings in the “right-center” category.

Boston Herald

Chicago Tribune

Counter Extremism Project

Foreign Policy Research Institute

The Jewish Press (clearly a Jewish source, this publication is geared toward the Modern Orthodox Jewish community. They have no failed fact checks)

ITV News

Jewish Unpacked (this source has no failed fact checks. this source is right-leaning by necessity because of its historical examination of antisemitism in leftist spaces making those spaces inherently unsafe for Jews—not specifically in this most recent flare up in the I/p conflict, but for years).

Right Bias

Note: I don’t personally follow or read any of these sources. But I did list leftist sources with high credibility and reporting ratings, so I will do the same here in the interest of fairness. It should be noted that all other source bias ratings had results several pages long. Right Bias sources with high credibility and reporting ratings were confined to one page only. There are no Right Bias Sources with Very High reporting ratings and high credibility.

Economic Policy Journal (no failed fact checks now or ever)

Influence Watch (tends to view liberal and progressive politics as “extremist,” but has no failed fact checks.)

I am not inclined to trust HP simply because their most recent antisemitic behavior fell short of hoping for Jewish genocide. I have a higher bar for accounts than that.

[pisswizzard]

Given barely 20 minutes passed between my post and your response, I don't believe you gave those sources (all from reputable places and primarily from prior to Oct.7th) more than a cursory glance.

I did watch the video in it’s entirety and it uses a lot of loaded language, leaves out a lot of relevant information, and the entire thing seems to revolve around the notion that Israel as a country has a claim to Palestinian land that supersedes that of Palestine itself and i do not agree. (And i get the sense that you and I disagree on this as well and if so then that’s just the way things are. I’m not here to try and change your mind, only to respond to your direct critique) Additionally the video is a general history lesson on political relationships of the broader area as a whole; it hardly mentions Palestine at all other than referring to it as territory belonging to Israel that should be treated better.

To be candid, I am not denying that I support a peaceful dismantlement of Israel. That is indeed my stance, one I hold equally for the USA. Both nations were established only via atrocity and injustice, and the only chance of fixing anything and healing as a society requires unequivocal land back and restoration of sovereignty to the original stewards of those lands. And as i said before, I also support Israeli residents having the option of remaining in Palestine, as it is their home too, and for international aid to help make that happen. None of that has to require violence or death, and I'd much rather it didn't. Everyone could theoretically just agree to cease the violence and then actually do so. Peace and harmonious cohabitation can be possible.

I do see your point about renaming but Israeli Defense Force is a title, not a collective naming of an identity. The soldiers as a group are Israeli. Being a soldier is not who they are; it’s what they do. And yes there’s a lot of folks on some major bullshit with terms like “isn’trael,” which I absolutely agree is completely inappropriate and feels like folks are trying to be witty about this situation. However the replacing of “Defense” with “Occupational” serves a distinct purpose of acknowledging that Israel does not have an internationally recognized legal right to “self defense” against the people under it’s own illegal occupation. Here is an Al Jazeera article that discusses this pretty thoroughly. There are rules of engagement that Israel has agreed to that are not being abided. Just as the word apartheid has a specific meaning, one also accurately applied to this situation, an occupation is a specific thing and what Israel is doing is occupying Palestine.

People, specifically non-Palestinian leftists and particularly the white, goyish folks (like myself) who genuinely want to be effective activists, have got to stop referring to the IOF/IDF as demons or demonic. I’m serious. I abhore them and everything they are doing but we all know that calling Jewish folks demons is like old school antisemitism, right? It’s so important that folks are careful to avoid dehumanizing these people. There’s a difference in actions being inhumane vs inhuman. You can’t let dehumanization be something your brain deems acceptable in any situation. Ever. Once you decide that it’s okay to dehumanize one group of people, you are much more susceptible to doing so again. Even terrible people are people, and it’s not acceptable to dehumanize anyone. Y’all have got to be able to fight for Palestinian rights without being antisemitic. It’s not hard; there’s endless shit to criticize Israel for.

[vamptastic]

You're all good! I/P is just what I use as a shorthand tag for posts about Israel/Palestine, since it's a pain to type out (and I also like to use a lesser used/known tag for this issue because I don't want people looking up the tag and using whatever I've said on the subject to argue with me. I'm very much still learning and have doubtlessly reblogged things I no longer agree with.)

The reason for responding in the tags is just that I'm not as educated on this as I'd like to be and I'm not very confident in my ability to talk about it without making a fool of myself. I've added some things you've mentioned that I'm unfamiliar with to my list of topics to research and hopefully I'll be able to give an equally in depth response someday.

If you don't mind me giving some less historically informed thoughts I have:

That is about what I suspected about Britain's role in the formation of Israel, but you're probably about a million times more educated on this subject than me. I graduated high school literally last weekend, and I grew up with a hardcore Zionist Israeli Rabbi so I was exposed to a LOT of Zionist propaganda growing up that makes it difficult to trust my own opinions on Israel sometimes. Often, I feel my gut reaction to Israeli atrocities is far too sympathetic because of this.

Everything online seems to be so biased one way or the other that the only reliable way to form an opinion is pure historical analysis. Which I'm making an effort to do, it's just taking a while. I'm in the midst of a 600 page book right now that outlines the foundation of the state of Israel and I feel like I'm barely cracking the surface.

It has always seemed to me that while American Reform Judaism tends to be more progressive than most American Christian sects and even other sects of Judaism, Zionism is a massive blind spot. I know many Reform Jews who otherwise support socialist policy but will defend right-wing policies in Israel, or dislike living in the heavily militarized United States but celebrate military technologies in Israel.

I think this is an extension of the overall conflict between Jews tending towards progressive policy as a result of always being a minority, and the privileged status many of us achieve pulling us away from it. Essentially, I believe the current situation has arisen from those among us with the most social and political power being the ones most likely to throw other peoples under the bus and cozy up to the powers that be.

...That got very off topic from the original article here, sorry.

Genuinely though, you've presented an analysis of why the state of Israel was formed that I agree with completely and I greatly appreciate that. The Israel/Palestine conflict tends to be reduced down to narratives people are more familiar with (most often a settler/colonialist narrative, which definitely isn't off the mark but certainly not a complete analysis) and I find it very frustrating. There is an unfortunate tendency on the Internet for people to want to find an easily understood right answer to every political issue they hear of, and I think it has pushed inaccurate narratives to the surface. Long, in-depth, and complex answers do not tend to be popular on here, even in circles dedicated to discussing politics, but they are very much appreciated by me.

"Where do you think my grandmother spent the Second World War?"

"Adam Broomberg, a prominent Jewish artist and Berlin-based photographer, asked this of the police after they grabbed him by the neck, threw him to the ground, beat him on the back then led him away in handcuffs."

(later in the article...)

"The justification for a pre-emptive ban on a child-friendly afternoon action to hold up watermelons, the fruit associated with Palestine, would almost be comedic if it weren’t quite so cynical—’antisemitic watermelons’. On Nakba Day itself, police vigilance was so extreme that police at one point stopped people from dancing the dabke on the basis that this traditional Palestinian dance potentially amounts to ‘political expression.’ All literature about BDS and any flyer containing the word ‘Nakba’ was seized."