#twostatesolution

[girlactionfigure]

Serious question for all those who love to hate on Israel. I have yet to hear anyone on the “Palestinian” side give any reasonable solution to the situation here.  Everyone loves to criticize Israel and call us all kinds of hateful names, but at the end of the day, we are NOT the ones that wanted this war. We fight it only because we have no other option.

shayaknyc

Reposted @mylandmyhomeisrael

[tmarshconnors]

Standing in Solidarity with Israel

As we witness the complex and ever-evolving landscape of the Middle East, it is essential to express our unwavering support for the nation of Israel. A land with a rich history, a diverse population, and a determination to thrive in the face of adversity, Israel has long been a symbol of resilience and hope in a turbulent region.

A Haven for Diversity: Israel is a nation built on the principles of democracy, freedom, and inclusion. Its diverse population includes people from various backgrounds, religions, and ethnicities, living together in a vibrant, multicultural society. This commitment to diversity and pluralism is a beacon of hope in a world often marked by division and conflict.

A Struggle for Survival: The state of Israel was born out of the ashes of the Holocaust, a tragic period in history where six million Jews were systematically murdered. The establishment of Israel in 1948 was a pivotal moment, offering a safe haven for Jewish people who had suffered persecution for centuries.

Resilience in the Face of Adversity: Throughout its history, Israel has faced numerous challenges and threats to its existence. Yet, it has consistently demonstrated its resilience, enduring wars, terrorism, and international pressures. The Israeli people have shown remarkable strength and determination in building a prosperous and thriving nation despite the odds.

A Quest for Peace: Israel has repeatedly expressed its willingness to engage in peaceful negotiations with its neighbors. The pursuit of a two-state solution, which would establish a secure and recognized Palestine alongside a secure and recognized Israel, remains a vital goal. It is imperative that all parties involved come to the table and work towards a lasting peace in the region.

Innovation and Progress: Israel has become a global leader in innovation and technology, contributing to advancements in fields like medicine, agriculture, and cybersecurity. Its creativity and entrepreneurial spirit have earned it the nickname "Start-up Nation." Israel's contributions benefit not only its citizens but also the world at large.

Humanitarian Aid and Assistance: Israel has a history of providing humanitarian aid to those in need around the world, regardless of their nationality or religion. In times of crisis, Israel has sent emergency relief teams, medical assistance, and humanitarian support to countries facing natural disasters or other calamities.

It is crucial to recognize that expressing solidarity with Israel does not mean ignoring the suffering or aspirations of the Palestinian people. It is possible to support Israel's right to exist and thrive while also advocating for a just and peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that respects the rights and dignity of both Israelis and Palestinians.

In these challenging times, let us stand in solidarity with Israel, a nation that has overcome immense obstacles, embraced diversity, and contributed significantly to the global community. Together, we can work towards a future where peace and coexistence prevail in the region, benefiting all its inhabitants.

Hamas … cannot walk away from this unpunished.

[her-weird-world]

From Balfour to Israel: Unraveling the Complex History of Palestine

In the early 19th century this region was controlled by Ottoman Empire. During the Great War British took the charge of this place. In 1917, the British being a colonizer gave Balfour a declaration. The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing its support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish…

[phonemantra-blog]

Veteran comedian Jerry Seinfeld found himself in the middle of an unexpected political exchange during his recent stand-up show in Sydney, Australia. A pro-Palestine heckler interrupted Seinfeld's set, prompting a witty and pointed response from the comedian. Let's delve into the details of this incident, exploring the heckler's actions, Seinfeld's response, and the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Heckler Disrupts Jerry Seinfeld Show Heckler Interrupts Seinfeld's Set with Pro-Palestine Slogan On Sunday, June 18th, 2024, Jerry Seinfeld performed a stand-up routine at the Qudos Bank Arena in Sydney. During his set, a member of the audience disrupted the show by shouting a pro-Palestine slogan: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!" This slogan, often used by pro-Palestinian activists, refers to a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where a single state would encompass all of historical Palestine. Seinfeld Responds with Humor and Frustration Seinfeld, known for his observational humor and dry wit, addressed the heckler head-on. He responded with a mixture of sarcasm and exasperation: Sarcastic Mockery: He sarcastically declared the heckler a "genius" who had "solved the Middle East!" This jab poked fun at the perceived simplicity of the slogan and the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Frustration at Disruption: Seinfeld expressed frustration at the disruption of his comedy show, stating, "It's a comedy show, you moron! Get out of here." The comedian further highlighted the inappropriateness of the outburst by pointing out that a comedy show is not the appropriate venue for a political debate. Heckler Continues Chanting, Seinfeld Uses Wit to Defuse Tension Despite being escorted out by security, the heckler continued to chant "Palestine will be free" as they were removed from the venue. Seinfeld, demonstrating his comedic prowess, used this to further defuse the tension: Mock Encouragement: He sarcastically encouraged the heckler to "keep going" before predicting they would be "punching" them soon. This lighthearted approach aimed to de-escalate the situation and maintain a humorous atmosphere. Highlight Inconvenience: Seinfeld jokingly pointed out that the heckler's outburst wouldn't influence the audience and instead predicted a humorous news headline about the incident. A History of Support for Israel and Facing Pro-Palestine Protests This incident is not the first time Seinfeld has encountered pro-Palestine protests during his stand-up career. Outspoken Support for Israel: Seinfeld has been a vocal supporter of Israel, particularly following the October 7th Hamas attacks. He has also visited Tel Aviv to meet with the families of hostages held by Hamas. Previous Protests: In recent months, Seinfeld has faced pro-Palestine demonstrations at other events, including his commencement speech at Duke University and a comedy set in Virginia. These protests highlight the ongoing tensions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the differing perspectives on this complex issue. Seinfeld on Protests: Frustration and Misplaced Aim In a recent podcast interview, Seinfeld addressed the issue of protesters at his shows, expressing frustration at their misplaced focus: Criticism of Protests: He labeled the protests "dumb" and pointed out that comedians have little to no political influence. Promoting Civic Engagement: Despite his frustration, Seinfeld acknowledged the importance of young people getting involved in politics. However, he emphasized the need for them to "correct their aim" and engage in more productive forms of political discourse. Beyond the Heckle: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Explained (Optional) The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex and longstanding issue with deep historical roots. This section can be included if you want to provide a brief overview of the conflict for readers unfamiliar with the topic. Key Points of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Historical Context: Briefly discuss the historical events that led to the current situation, including the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and the ensuing displacement of Palestinians. Competing Claims: Highlight the conflicting claims to the land by both Israelis and Palestinians. Major Issues: Touch upon some of the major issues at the heart of the conflict, such as borders, Jerusalem, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

[usnewsper-politics]

Hostage Crisis Hinders Peace: Hillary Clinton Calls for Action in Israel #annexingpartsoftheWestBank #Gaza #Gazaborderclashes #Hamas #hillaryclinton #internationalsupport #Israelssecurityconcerns #Israelihostages #IsraeliPrimeMinisterBenjaminNetanyahu #lastingresolution #peacebetweenIsraelisandPalestinians #releaseofhostages #tensionsbetweenIsraelandHamas #terroristgroup #twostatesolution

[taqato-alim]

Analysis of: YouTube user comments to the video "Israel under pressure as Gaza strikes compound suffering of civilians" by DW News

In the following text "document" refers to the combined comments to the YouTube video.

Here is a summary of the key points:

The genre of the document is an online discussion forum/comment section in response to a news article.

Views expressed range from strongly pro-Israel to strongly pro-Palestine with little consensus.

Reasoning suffers from biases, logical fallacies, lack of evidence and consideration of nuance.

Emotions like anger and defensiveness dominate over objective, solutions-focused discourse.

Stakeholders are discussed in polarized ways that overgeneralize motivations and responsibilities.

Participants fall more on the democratic end of expression but close to autocratic in hostile, fact-averse rhetoric.

Two main ideological factions support primarily Israeli or Palestinian perspectives.

Arguments on both sides exhibit nationalism, omit opposing considerations, and downplay political complexities of the conflict.

To strengthen quality, discourse requires more factual substantiation, acknowledging complexity, mitigating bias, focusing on understanding over conflict, and cooperative problem-solving over blame.

In summary, the discussion reflects entrenched polarized positions online debates can foster, with rhetorical weaknesses that impede progress towards consensus or resolution in conflict.

Here is a summary of the document in bullet points:

Many comments express opinions or viewpoints about the Israel-Palestine conflict and recent events.

Some ask questions seeking additional information or context.

A few defend or support Israel's actions while others criticize or condemn them.

Hamas' actions and responsibilities are also discussed and debated.

The timing and circumstances around the October 7th attack in Jerusalem are referenced.

Comments reference statistics or reports about civilian deaths and support for Hamas.

The histories and claims to the land by Israelis and Palestinians are mentioned.

International laws of war and responsibilities to protect civilians are brought up.

The roles and responses of other countries like the US, Egypt, and Hamas are discussed.

Logistics and realities of the conflict like population density and tunnels are addressed.

Moral evaluations and accusations of innocence or terrorism on both sides.

Frustration or criticism is expressed towards media coverage and interpretations.

Religious or nationalistic rhetoric is invoked in a few comments on both sides.

Practical suggestions or counter-arguments are made in response to other views.

Here are the main stakeholders mentioned in the document and an evaluation:

Israelis - Interest in security, autonomy over territory. Some target criticism of actions.

Palestinians - Interest in autonomy, rights, end to occupation/blockade. Some defend Hamas actions.

Hamas - Defended by some as resistance, criticized by others as terrorist group prolonging conflict.

Israel government - Critiqued for actions, settler policies. Interest in security, defeating Hamas.

Palestinian civilians - Concerns expressed for welfare and deaths, also accused of Hamas support by some.

United States - Role scrutinized in backing Israel, pressures on conflict. Seen as pro-Israel by some.

Egypt - Role scrutinized in Gaza policies, pressures on Hamas. Seen as an obstacle by some comments.

International community - Evaluated in constraints on and pressures applied to conflict parties. Blamed by some.

Overall stakeholders are discussed in polarized, even unfairly prejudiced ways at times. More balanced, nuanced acknowledgment of valid security/rights concerns on all sides could strengthen evaluation rather than politicized finger-pointing and overgeneralization around stakeholders' motivations and responsibilities in this complex, extended conflict.

Based on the positions expressed in the comments, there appear to be two main factions present:

Pro-Israel faction:

Defends Israeli right to security and attacks on Hamas targets.

Blames Hamas for conflict escalation and using civilians as shields.

Sees Hamas/Palestinians as illegitimate or obstructionist to peace.

Criticizes international pressure/condemnations of Israel's actions.

Supports military response and casts doubt on civilian casualty statistics.

Pro-Palestine faction:

Sympathizes with suffering of Palestinians under occupation/blockade.

Criticizes disproportionate/indiscriminate nature of Israeli strikes.

Questions obligations of occupier to protect civilians under its control.

Points to root causes in settlements, unequal rights, loss of land.

Questions official narratives and casualty figures from Israeli sources.

A minority of comments advocate more neutral/moderate positions but most comments seem to strongly advocate for one factional position over the other. The polarized discourse reflects the entrenched divisions between the two main ideological camps in this complex, long-running conflict.

Here is an evaluation of the arguments made by the Pro-Israel faction in the document:

Right to security: Valid concern, but blockade/occupation policies also impact Palestinian security and rights. Nuance is lacking.

Blaming Hamas: Reasonable to an extent, but ignores grievances that fuel support for Hamas and risks portraying all Palestinians as supporters. Oversimplifies root causes.

Palestinians as obstructionist: Depicts Israel's stance as always reasonable and Palestinians as consistently unreasonable without acknowledging power imbalances. One-sided.

Criticism of international pressure: Fair to scrutinize other nations' stances, but rhetoric dismisses outside perspectives without merit. Nationalism overrides impartial consideration of issues.

Supporting military response: Ignores proportionality concerns of international law and widespread civilian impact. Lacks acknowledgement of non-violent or political options.

Casting doubt on casualties: Undermines consensus reporting without alternative evidence. Risks downplaying humanitarian toll, which hardens positions.

Omissions: Failure to substantially acknowledge settler expansion, Gaza blockade impact, or possibility of both sides' legitimate security/rights concerns. Appears largely one-sided defense of state policies over impartial analysis.

Overall, while security concerns are understandable, the arguments exhibit strong nationalism, lack proportionate consideration of Palestinians' perspectives, and downplay political/socioeconomic drivers of the conflict. A more balanced, nuanced discussion acknowledging complexity on all sides could strengthen the quality of discourse.

Here is an evaluation of the arguments made by the Pro-Palestine faction:

Sympathy for Palestinian suffering: Acknowledges humanitarian impact, though risk of emotional appeals without addressing root causes.

Criticizing disproportionate strikes: Valid international law concern, but does not sufficiently acknowledge militant activities/locations either.

Obligations of occupier: Reasonable international standard, but context of civilian rockets/attacks requires acknowledgement too for balanced perspective.

Root causes in settlements: Valid historical grievance, but presents Palestinian actions as solely reactionary without agency. One-sided.

Questioning official narratives: Reasonable skepticism, but alternative narratives also require substantiation to avoid appearance of denial.

Omissions: Does not substantially address Hamas charter/governance, civilian protections responsibilities, or potential for negotiated political solutions on the basis of international consensus.

Overall, while some concerns raised align with international law, the arguments exhibit an empathetic nationalism, lack of acknowledgement for complex security factors, and downplay possibilities for non-violence/negotiation. A more comprehensive, impartial discussion is needed to strengthen rhetorical positions and understanding between opposing interpretive communities.

Based on the document, there appears to be little meaningful consensus among the participants.

Some key points regarding the lack of consensus include:

Views expressed range widely from strongly supporting Israel to strongly supporting Palestine, with very few ambivalent or neutral positions.

Few comments acknowledge legitimate concerns or interests on both sides of the conflict. Most advocate primarily for one side over the other.

Factual claims and causal interpretations of events are often directly contradictory between comments, suggesting no agreement.

Blame and responsibility are primarily placed on the opposing side by different comments, rather than shared between parties.

Proposed solutions tend to reflect absolutist preferences for one side rather than compromise-based approaches both sides could accept.

Replies often involve counter-arguments and rejection rather than seeking understanding or common ground.

Appeals to emotions, moral outrage and provocative language widen rather than narrow differences.

Overall, while debate of perspectives is reasonable, the polarized, reactive style of discourse and lack of objective truths referenced appears to foster division and oppositional camps rather than movement toward consensus. A more reconciliatory, fact-based approach may be necessary to build agreement.

Here is an evaluation of the quality of reasoning in the document:

Objective evidence: Very little objective evidence or data-backed claims are provided to support assertions. Much is anecdotal.

Credible sources: Sources for statistical claims etc. are rarely cited, undermining credibility and leaving conclusions unsupported.

Logical consistency: Logical fallacies abound. Reasoning frequently lacks internal consistency or ignores counter-considerations.

Open-mindedness: Most comments advance pre-formed views rather than demonstrate open-minded, balanced assessment of available information.

Nuanced understanding: Issues are often presented as black/white rather than acknowledging complexity. Context and all perspectives are not considered.

Solution-oriented: Discussion centers more on conflict/blame than cooperative resolution of issues both sides could accept.

Principles of reasoned debate: Principles like charitable interpretation, burden of proof, are not systematically applied to debate issues fairly and truthfully.

Overall, while open discussion of issues is positive, the quality and standards of reasoning exhibited in these comments fall quite short. Emotion and pre-determined views prevail over fact-based, nuanced, and unbiased analysis. This format may also encourage rapid, reactive responses over well-researched, balanced consideration of issues. Substantially improving evidentiary support and logical coherence could strengthen the quality of this public dialogue and debate.

Based on the content and discourse style within the document, here is an evaluation of where the participants fall on the democratic vs autocratic spectrum:

Democratic:

Participants are free to express a diversity of views without censorship. This aligns with democratic values of free expression.

Discussion involves questions, counterarguments, and debate of different perspectives, reflecting democratic principles of open dialogue.

Autocratic:

Some comments convey an absolutist certainty of one position over engagement with alternate views. This aligns more with autocratic mindsets.

Bias, logical fallacies, and personal attacks are present without objective standards, as in less regulated speech environments.

Lack of fact-checking or accountability for veracity of claims could enable spread of misinformation.

Overall, while the open discussion format is democratic, the style of some partisan contributions without accountability reflects weaknesses that can enable autocratic influences like propaganda or post-truth rhetoric to spread more easily.

The participants score higher on the democratic end due to the open forum, but could be pulled more towards autocratic tendencies if misinformation or attacks on the "other" go unchecked. Moderation promoting respect, facts and criticial thinking could help counterbalance this.

Here’s an analysis of the emotions expressed in the document:

Anger: Many comments express anger, usually directed at the opposing side’s perceived actions and stance.

Frustration: Some comments convey frustration, e.g. at the conflict continuing, media coverage, or opposing views.

Defensiveness: Replies often adopt a defensive tone in response to perceived criticism or accusation.

Righteous indignation: Certain claims and language portray strong moral outrage toward the other.

Fear/threat: Some comments reference feelings of threat from the other or worse events to come.

Sympathy: Comments expressing pity for Palestinian suffering or specific tragedies.

Nationalism: Pride or defensive tone in some comments suggests nationalistic emotions.

Hopelessness: A few comments convey a sense that peace may never be achieved.

Accusation: Finger-pointing the blame at the other side is a common underlying emotion.

Overall, intensely negative and polarizing emotions like anger, defensiveness and accusation dominate the discussion, undermining the potential for rational debate and understanding between opposing perspectives. More constructive emotions could be empathy, concern for all innocent lives, and hope for nonviolent solutions. The format may also encourages emotionally-reactive rather than measured responses.

Here is an evaluation of some key psychological factors reflected in the document:

Polarization - Views appear highly polarized along pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian lines, suggesting effect of group polarization dynamics.

Confirmation bias - As noted, comments strongly reflect seeking out confirming rather than disconfirming information, maintaining preexisting views.

Tribalism - Rhetoric and logical framing reflects an "us vs. them" psychological tribalism rather than impartial assessment of issues.

Reactance - Defensiveness and counter-accusations in replies reflect a psychological reactance to perceived criticism or threat.

Cognitive dissonance - Attempts to reduce dissonance between preexisting views and contradictory information through rationalization strategies.

Psychological needs - Needs for belonging, positive self/group image appear stronger drivers of rhetoric than truth or resolution-finding.

Emotion overriding reason - As evaluated, emotional/reactive thinking dominates over impartial/objective reasoning about complex issues.

Moral grandstanding - Language of accusing/indignation suggests satisfying psychological need to see oneself/group as unequivocally righteous.

Overall, the well-documented psychological factors of confirmation bias, group polarization, tribalism and needs for belonging/certainty likely strongly influence discourse, undermining clear-headed analysis and compromise-finding around such a conflict. Awareness could help address these dynamics.

Here are some logical fallacies I identified in the document:

Appeal to emotion - Comments appealing to emotions like pity, anger without factual basis. e.g. "poor Palestinians".

Strawman - Misrepresenting others' views inaccurately to more easily rebut. e.g. overgeneralizing the "world" or "educated people".

Red herring - Changing the topic to divert from the original issue. e.g.Bringing up unrelated events/countries.

Whataboutism - Attempting to discredit an argument by responding with "what about…" some unrelated issue. Common tactic used.

Hasty generalization - Making broad generalizations from anecdotal or limited examples. e.g. Views of "everybody", "nobody".

Anecdotal - Using personal stories or singular examples as representative of a whole issue. Limited evidence.

Appeal to authority - Claiming something as true due to someone's status/title rather than evidence.

Special pleading - Making exception for some without reason. E.g defense of some militant group's actions.

Faulty causation - Falsely claiming or implying x caused y without evidence. Common concerning events/conflicts.

Black-and-white thinking - Presenting issues as either/or without acknowledging nuance or complexity.

Overall, logical fallacies are quite prevalent in the discussion, likely due to the limitations of internet debate forums which can foster fallacious or emotionally-driven reasoning rather than objective, evidenced discussion. More skepticism of such rhetoric could improve discourse.

Here is an evaluation of ethics in the document:

Accuracy: Some comments share reports/statistics but without citations it's difficult to verify the accuracy of factual claims. Overall accuracy seems variable.

Bias: Many comments seem biased towards one viewpoint over others. However, bias is somewhat expected in debate forums. Most allow counterarguments.

Respect: Some comments address the topic respectfully while others use accusatory or disrespectful language towards those with differing views. Tone could be more civil.

Identity: Many users hide behind anonymity which could enable uncivil rhetoric. Transparency about identities/motives could promote more ethical discourse.

Facts vs. opinions: While opinions are shared, not all clearly distinguish facts from interpretations/opinions. Reader discernment is required to separate the two.

Propaganda: A few comments seem aimed more at promoting a particular viewpoint than open discussion. Agenda-pushing edges into propaganda.

Exploitation: The humanitarian crisis is exploited for political points scoring by some rather than genuine concern for affected peoples.

Understanding: Few comments seem aimed at understanding other perspectives. Most seek to promote/defend one side over meaningful dialogue.

Solution-focused: Most debate fault/blame rather than constructively discuss non-violent solutions both sides could accept. Tone hinders progress.

Overall, while open debate is important, the focus on attack/defense over understanding and the lack of accountability for factual claims or respectful dialogue undermine the ethical quality of discussion in this forum. More neutral, solution-oriented discourse could be encouraged.

Here is an evaluation of the document in relation to potential biases:

Confirmation bias: Many comments seem aimed at defending/justifying preexisting views rather than open-minded consideration of alternatives.

In-group bias: Identification with one side (Israeli or Palestinian) appears to color perspectives and capacity to see other views objectively.

Out-group bias: Derogation or skepticism of the other side without substantial grounds at times suggests out-group bias.

Authority bias: Uncritical acceptance of claims due to perceived authority (official reports etc) without independent verification.

Exaggerated bias: Strong, emotionally polarized language at times goes beyond objective positions and into exaggeration for rhetorical effect.

Perseverance bias: Unwillingness to reconsider views in light of counter-evidence or failure to acknowledge complexity/nuance.

Availability bias: Views more readily call to mind recent or emotionally salient examples without considering full appropriate context.

Framing bias: language subtly frames issues in a way that primes certain emotional and cognitive associations over others.

Overall, while open debate has value, the many indications of confirmation, in-group, out-group and related biases suggest achieving genuinely objective and nuanced consideration of this issue may prove challenging within this comment discussion format and polarized sociopolitical climate. Remaining open and considering alternative perspectives could help counteract this.

Here are some common criteria for evaluating the genre of a document and my analysis based on the given document:

Tone/Register - The tone of most comments is informal/conversational as is typical in online discussions. However, a few use a more assertive/defensive tone. Overall the register fits an online forum genre.

Organization - The comments are loosely organized by time of posting but have no formal structure. Replies are interspersed. This disorganization fits an online discussion genre.

Content - The content involves expressed opinions, questions, counter-arguments - which aligns with an open discussion/debate format. Factual reports are also referenced.

Purpose - To discuss, debate and share perspectives on the news issue. This collaborative/interactive purpose fits an online discussion board genre.

Format - Individual comments in a threaded format with @ replies. Visual presence of likes/votes. All fit a typical online forum discussion board format.

Citations - Some reports/statistics are referenced but no clear citation style. Aligns with a less formal discussion than academic writing.

Audience - The commentary suggests an audience interested in the news issue seeking/sharing varied perspectives. Fits intended audience of an online discussion.

Participants - Appears to involve multiple individuals rather than representing one voice/authorship. Fits interactive nature of an online discussion format.

Based on these criteria pertaining to tone, organization, content, purpose, format, citations, audience and participants - the document genre most accurately aligns with an online discussion board or forum format.

[expfcultragreen]

Some people are more excited about talking about "abolishing israel" than protecting palestine 🙄

Sorry for being That Guy but #twostatesolution

Unpopular opinion: israel never stopped existing, even palestinian currency said "palestine (israel)" on it prior to the nakba...the modern state (and its western backers, most relevantly) being structured and run as an explicitly genocidal economic/cultural project is the issue and just saying "fuck israel" fucks this whole discourse up entirely actually

Yall are scaring the libs pissless, theyre 2 textbooks behind at least

[hgohd]

I suggest Jews watch this video. The fellow is from a prominent Zionist family in Israel. He was born and raised there. He refers to Israel as a terrorist nation. bbcnews @reuters @cnn @aljazeeraenglish #h #H #harjgtheonefba #harjgtheone Christianity and Judaism is dead. https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMjnEDy2a/

[palestinians4ever]

#endtheoccupation #twostatesolution #endapartheid #stopisraeliwarcrimes #stoparmingisrael #defundisrael

[abitterlifethroughcinema]

WOKE! Film Reviews

BCN FILM FESTIVAL 2019 (DAYS TWO AND THREE)

by

Lucas Avram Cavazos

As St. Jordi wafted drizzly into evening, so did the films, and it’s a good thing that all these screenings mostly take place in the two Cinema Verdi locales in the heart of Gracia, replete with ‘xerradas’ (talks) with directors, actors and industry folks, much like the one I attended where famed director and playwright Mike Leigh graced us with his presence as he premiered his latest, quite historical opus, which clocks in at 2-1/2 hours. More about that below under the critique.

As the lone wolf in the Catalan film critics circle who reviews in English, it comes down to careful planning on how to strategically choose and attend the premieres of the film fest I go to…and then I bust my bum and get these reviewed recommendations to you, my lovely readers. Shall we continue with the Barcelona Film Fest 3.0 then?

Peterloo ###-1/2    There is a sense of wonder that occurs whenever Mike Leigh quietly releases a new film. One of the ‘xerrada’ audience members inquired if Leigh might ever return to the stage as a playwright, to which the famed director said that cinema was now the continuing love and preferred mode of work for him. Set exactly 200 years ago, as the fall of Waterloo has just happened, Leigh’s latest opus takes an in-depth, and often trying, look into the plight of the Mancunian labourers who were butchered and many more abhorrently beaten during revolts in 1819; to this day, the St. Peter’s Field Masacre remains a horrid mark on British history. The costumes and scenery that so perfectly paint a picture of these times also make sure we know how absolutely brutal they were.  What Leigh also does is attempt to highlight that whatever the sad state of affairs that existed 200 years ago, we have not come far when actually confronting the injustices still rife in the UK, especially when looking at the “reports” that led to Brexit and its ridiculous stronghold nearly three years later after its vote. And its to his mastery, if at times a bit too long in its intricacy, this film also takes a stab at the backdrop behind the Peterloo massacre; alas, it was this drama that led to eventual parliamentary action against workers, only to then finally provoke parliamentary reform and the obvious need for unions and tougher workers’ rights. The film itself is long on political talk and there are often long slogs of minutes saturated by hard-to-define speeches and MP debates, which do fairly little to add to the meat and potatoes of the plot, so I sincerely think that a good 25-35 minutes could have been excised and still a concise movie would have resulted in similar statements That said, it is hard, especially as a tutor of modern history, to watch the film and not think that the Britons of a post-Brexit realm may need to seriously consider their protective rights as workers who once belonged to a larger union, imperfect to say the least, but still a force that gave strength to an already strong European power. Only time will tell what happens.

Born a King ###    There is a new age of rising cinema awareness currently happening in Saudi Arabia. It lies part and parcel with many supposed tendencies taken by current ruler Muhammad Ben Salman as of late to paint a prettier picture of a new and changing Saudi nation, replete with women able to drive and cinema houses able to be opened for the first time ever. Let’s talk about this tasked farce for alas, it was ridden all over this film, and in the ‘xerrada’ that took place later in the week, that Saudi hands and money certainly had a stake on how this film would paint the story of the modern age of rulers of Saudi Arabia, as well as, their relations with the British Empire. In reference to that, there seems to be a motive to say that the Saudis were certainly on an even keel with the Brits, as we are speaking of what are certainly thought of as empires. Director Augusti Vilaronga (he of Pa Negre fame) took on the extraordinary task of helping create and direct the first European movie in history to be filmed in Saudi Arabia, as well as, now being the first film to show across new movie houses in Saudi Arabia. That said, when asked about the funding, he and one of his producers seemed to mumble over the fact, stating that money from Saudi hands was very little and was private…things that make you go hmmmm. The film is simple and easy to watch, though it starts off like what seems to be an animated affair, only to turn into a tale of the wonderful Faisal (first-timer Abdullah Ali), young son of warrior and King Abdulaziz of Arabia travelling to England as a barely 14 year old lad meeting and hosting audiences with heads of state in the name of his father and land. Detailing the conflicts and strengths between two extremely different modes of empires in a “modern age” is never easy in any manner, so the look of the film is a winder to its own self, as it highlights the way people live(d) in the two respective regions, as well as, the superiority complex that highlights so many governmental policies and mentalities. All in all, I liked the historical aspect of the story it attempts to detail, but all I kept thinking was…did anyone who funded this have any links to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi? I’d tread lightly with ever working with the Saud…Spanish history, especially militarily, rarely strays too far from that family, unfortunately.  

The Extraordinary Journey of the Fakir ####    One of the best films of the early part of the festival, Journey tells the charming and oft-times oddly harrowing voyage of Aja Patel (Tamil cinema star Dhanush), a conman who uses magic to his whims and as a way to pick people’s pockets. When his mum dies far too early in life without him ever making it to Paris with her, he decides to  journey there and find his long-lost father. Now, suspension of disbelief is of utmost necessity here, but this film’s playful take on reality fused with fantasy, above par comedic acting, and fantastic scenarios in wonderful settings makes it so delectably enjoyable to watch. The thing is not so much the journey itself, but how happenstance plays a big part of everything Aja goes through and it is as inviting as it is silly. From a stowaway adventure in an Ikea-like furniture move to England to another stowaway moment via a huge Louis Vuitton suitcase to Rome and even a hot air balloon ride to Libya, we eagerly follow this incredible tale as it winds us around half the world and then back to India. Canadian director Ken Scott has crafted what is one of the finest pieces of celluloid love I’ve seen this year, and I hope it finds the international success that the book upon which its based did.

[berlinbrent]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Brent Goff (@brentgofftv)

Trump‘s “diplomatic arson” in #Jerusalem - The heat felt at the Big Table on #TheDay dw.com/theday @AJCBerlin @ajc #usembassy #israel #palestine #Mideast #TwoStateSolution (at Berlin, Germany)

[alexange92]

Come with me & imagine, if you will, another dimention. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow. You suddenly find yourself in this world; A small microcosm in which you discover that you are not alone... You have an enemy, and for some reason that person vehemently hates your guts, and has sworn everything in his power to kill you. Here in this place, you are the prey. You find yourself trying to survive. Tiresly, you fight to defend yourself. You have to be on constant alert. Sleeping with one eye open at night. Glancing over your shoulder every minute of the day. Peeking behind corners where your hunter could be lurking, just waiting to pounce. Caught unawares between rocks and hard places, sometimes you merely escape with your life. You've been injured, sometimes severely, barely living to see another day. Recovering only to be attacked again. Time passes and a new comer arrives on the scene. This belittling "referee" comes between you both and tries to negotiate with you. The agreement for a truce seems reasonable enough to some. But you know that you'd have to make some serious compromises. All the while, your enemy stares back at you with violence-filled eyes. A hint of a smile creeps on the side of his mouth, and your heart fills with dread. Because you know. He won't keep his end of the deal. He will still try to take you out, despite any promises he makes. So what would you do? ▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪ The above analogy pictures Israel, of course. I wrote it intending to pull you into the story to present the reality of what the State of Israel is currently going through, in a different way- especially if you don't understand what's really going on. This is the "logic" (or lack thereof) of the U.N.'s proposed Two State Solution of the land of Israel. They want Israel to give up her sovereignty; to lay down their arms of self-defense from radical extreemist murderers, and give up their rights to live in the land HaShem gave to them.. to US! The U.N. is meeting tomorrow... Friends of Israel, let's pray today! #prayforthepeaceofjerusalem #shalomisrael #amyisraelchai #twostatesolution

[usnewsper-politics]

President Biden's Plan for Peaceful Coexistence in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict #IsraeliPalestinianconflict #peacefulcoexistence #presidentbiden #twostatesolution #WashingtonPostoped

[taqato-alim]

Analysis of: "Bearing witness to the disappearing world - Are political officials trying to bring on the apocalypse?" (commentary/opinion by Sarah Kendzior)

Here is a summary of the key points discussed:

The genre is commentary/opinion with aspects of political analysis and journalism

It makes strong arguments supported by factual evidence and reasoned analysis

The perspective is critical, left-leaning, and pro-Palestinian human rights

It aims to educate readers while disturbing some and motivating others

Ethics presented prioritize facts, humanitarianism, and principled stances

Analyzes complex geopolitical issues surrounding Israel/Palestine conflicts

Critiques US political leaders for enabling escalating civilian death tolls

Portrays dire humanitarian crises faced by Palestinians in Gaza

Evaluates situations in Israel and relationships with US/Twitter critically

Personality type of author hypothesized to be INTJ ("Strategic Mastermind")

Thoroughly discussed and evaluated multiple stakeholders, perspectives, and ethical considerations raised in the document.

Here is a summary of the document in bullet points:

The author woke up to find "Satan" trending on Twitter, but could not determine why. She fell down a "wormwood wormhole" of horror stories and exploitation of horror on the platform.

Twitter has long been a place for people to bear witness to tragic events in the disappearing world. The author joined in 2009 to watch Iranian protests. She has witnessed uprisings, their suppression, a pandemic, election violence, and climate disasters.

The network has been hijacked by those spreading misinformation and hate. Many users have left, but some return to document atrocities in Gaza because few other platforms will.

Political leaders insist people just "move on" from crises, but for those in Gaza there is nowhere to move, with closed borders and bombings. Over 7,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed in Gaza, nearly half of them children.

Comments from various US political leaders over the years have expressed apocalyptic or genocidal rhetoric regarding Israel, or indicated they feel divinely chosen to support the state. This includes figures from both major parties.

The author cannot determine if the US relationship with Israel stems from fanaticism, money, or bloodlust, but it commonly abets genocide. Both parties back support for Israel without hesitation.

In closing, the author notes politicians use piety as pretext but their actions denote darker goals of universally backing an increasingly authoritarian Israel.

Based on its content and style, I would classify the genre of this document as commentary/opinion with elements of political analysis and journalism.

Some indicators that led me to this evaluation:

The writing is personal and reflective in tone, with the author directly addressing the reader and sharing their perspectives and reactions to unfolding events. This suggests commentary/opinion.

However, it also analyzes political developments and presents factual details about issues like civilian deaths in Gaza, comments from politicians, and the historical context of US-Israeli relations. This indicates elements of political analysis and journalism.

Quotes and statistics from authoritative sources are referenced to support points, a technique common in journalism.

The purpose seems to be both informing the reader about issues, while also critiquing certain political stances and consequences of policy decisions.

It makes arguments and draws conclusions based on the evidence presented, rather than just reporting facts neutrally, as straight journalism would.

So in summary, while it contains journalistic elements, the overall genre I would assign is commentary/opinion with aspects of political analysis due to the persuasive and interpretive nature of the writing. The style is more essay-like than just a news report.

Based on the details provided, here is an evaluation of the ethics of the situation described in the document:

Loss of civilian life: The deaths of over 7,000 Palestinian civilians, nearly half of them children, raises grave humanitarian concerns and could constitute war crimes/genocide. This loss of life is clearly unethical.

Disproportionate force: The scale of civilian harm compared to any military objective raises questions about whether force used by Israel is proportionate under international law.

Collective punishment: Policies like restricting borders and cutting electricity/supplies for all of Gaza could be considered forms of illegal collective punishment.

Objectivity of coverage: The lack of media scrutiny or verification of death tolls hinders objective coverage and accountability for loss of life.

Political rhetoric: Calls for violence and framing of conflict in extremist religious/nationalist terms from leaders exacerbate tensions and loss of life.

Partisan enabling: Unconditional bipartisan support from US politicians encourages increasingly aggressive policies regardless of humanitarian impact.

Accountability: The failure of political or legal systems to investigate alleged war crimes or curb escalating civilian tolls undermines ethics of just conflict resolution.

Overall, the pattern of increasingly severe harm to innocent lives faced by one community, coupled with lack of accountability or proportional response, raises serious ethical issues regarding rules of war, human rights, and standards of ethical governance and oversight.

Here are some key stakeholders affected by this document and an evaluation of how they may be impacted:

Palestinian civilians: Gives visibility to their dire humanitarian situation and bolsters advocacy on their behalf.

Pro-peace Israelis: Validates concerns about increasingly nationalist government rhetoric endangering peace.

Anti-war activists: Provides factual ammunition to mobilize others against policies enabling violence and occupation.

Average citizens: Informs public discourse and may sway some voters reluctant to criticize leaders.

Politicians criticized: Indirectly pressures officials by challenging narratives and unethical policies/statements.

Media organizations: Sets a standard for in-depth, evidence-based analysis that moves commentary beyond partisanship.

Readers: Empowers some by presenting perspectives and facts outside mainstream coverage; disturbs others by confronting harsh realities.

Academic discussions: Contributes nuanced geopolitical knowledge and critique for researching issues comprehensively.

While upsetting status quos, the document aims to advance stakeholders seeking accountability, ethics-based debate, and solutions prioritizing civilian welfare over political allegiances driving ongoing conflict and oppression. It threatens entrenched interests but seeks to empower citizens and advocates through information.

Based on the document, here is an evaluation of the group of US political leaders it discusses:

Bipartisan problem: Leaders enabling problematic policies towards Israel span both Republicans and Democrats, indicating a systemic issue beyond partisanship.

Lack accountability: There seems to be little consequence for those making extremist, unethical, or factually inaccurate statements regarding sensitive issues.

Divinely motivated: Some leaders' comments indicate they feel spiritually chosen or called to support Israel in concerning ways unrelated to practical policy.

Apocalyptic rhetoric: Language used by some is alarmingly violent, nationalistic, or suggestive of desired end-times scenarios according to certain theological beliefs.

Genocidal implications: Unconditional support amid civilian death tolls raises questions about complicity in alleged war crimes or genocide.

Unethical alliances: Figures like Elliot Abrams with known roles enabling atrocities have been rehabilitated into leadership positions.

Corrupted incentives: Lobby/donor influence may be incentivizing putting foreign priorities over U.S. governance and humanitarian concerns.

Lack oversight: Absence of accountability allows normalization of extremism without checks from constituents, legal system, or independent press.

Overall, the document portrays this group of leaders critically as failing in their duties through irresponsible, harmful, and arguably illegal rhetoric and policies towards a sensitive geopolitical issue.

Based on details in the document, here is an evaluation of the situation in Gaza:

Humanitarian crisis: High death tolls, including many children, show civilians continuing to bear the brunt of the conflict.

Nowhere to flee: As an open-air prison with sealed borders, Gazans have extremely limited ability to safely evacuate areas of conflict.

Collective punishment: Infrastructural attacks and border restrictions amount to collective punishment of the entire civilian population.

Blockaded enclave: Strict control of goods/movement in and out of Gaza renders the population dependent on humanitarian aid.

Poverty and unemployment: Years of blockade and conflict have severely deteriorated the economy and social conditions.

Mental health impacts: Prolonged violence and uncertainty is psychologically traumatic, especially for children.

International attention waning: Deaths rarely make global headlines, and officials deny tolls, so global awareness/outrage is declining.

Political division: Governed by Hamas but also held hostage to their antagonism with Israel, further complicating resolution.

The portrayal is of a dire humanitarian crisis where civilians, especially children, face constant threats of violence amid highly restricted conditions amounting to an open-air prison.

Based on the details provided in the document, here is an evaluation of the situation in Israel:

Increasingly nationalist government: The ruling coalition includes extremist factions like Kahanists due to merger with Netanyahu's party.

Threat of religious conflict: Goals of some governing parties include actions that could destroy Muslim holy sites and spark sectarian violence.

Democratic backsliding: New laws proposed to curb dissent and free speech raise authoritarianism concerns.

Security challenges: Issues like Hamas hostages present real threats but are also exploited for political gain through hardline responses.

Civilian toll escalating: Israeli military operations, especially in Gaza, have led to thousands of Palestinian deaths, mostly civilians including many children.

International criticism: The scale of civilian harm is disproportionate according to some and may constitute war crimes, but faces inadequate investigation.

Divided public: Not all Israelis support the current leadership or policies, but political power is consolidating around more extreme factions.

Strained diplomacy: Escalating actions jeopardize the viability of a two-state solution and sacrifice international goodwill.

Overall, the document portrays a situation in Israel that is becoming increasingly unstable, aggressive and authoritarian, with the risks of worsening violence and democratic backsliding.

Based on the details in the document, here is an evaluation of the US relationship with Israel:

Unconditional support: Bipartisan backing for Israel is unhesitating and overrides any other policy considerations regarding human rights.

Sources unclear: True motivations behind this stance, such as religious fanaticism, moneyed influence, or strategic interests are ambiguous and concern the author.

Enables escalation: Unwavering support emboldens increasingly nationalistic Israeli governments and discourages accountability for civilian tolls.

Undermines peace efforts: Unconditional allegiance contradicts stated goals of brokering a resolution and damages neutrality as mediator.

Risks US credibility: Close alignment with policies criticized globally threatens America's soft power and moral authority on human rights issues.

Overlooks US interests: Prioritizing Israel above all else ignores impacts to regional stability, bilateral relations with other nations like Iran, and US credibility.

Raises ethical questions: Complicity in civilian deaths and oppression due to unwillingness to apply pressure on Israel for reform or restraint.

The assessment is that the relationship unconditionally enables policies threatening lives, justice and broader U.S. priorities in a way that deserves scrutiny and amendment rather than automatic allegiance.

Based on the document, here is an evaluation of Twitter's situation according to the author:

Platform hijacked: Twitter has been hijacked from within by those spreading misinformation, hate speech, and extremist garbage, driving many thoughtful users away.

Lost purpose: It has lost sight of its original purpose to bear "witness to the disappearing world" through citizen journalism and documenting human rights issues.

Toxic environment: Under new ownership, the platform has become a more toxic environment dominated by viral outrage instead of rational discourse.

Censorship concerns: Attempts to curb hate/extremism raise censorship concerns, yet inaction helps those agendas spread unchecked.

Waning trust: Users no longer trust the platform to be a useful tool for open exchange of ideas and information due to crackdowns or propaganda proliferation.

Loss of community: As people depart the platform, important social communities for coordinating grassroots action or relief efforts during crises have broken down.

Public square declined: Twitter is failing to serve its role as a digital public square for free expression and holding leaders accountable due to bias or lack of safeguards.

Alternative needed: Document suggests Twitter may no longer fulfill the social functions it once served, driving need to find/build alternative spaces for open debate.

So in summary, an unflattering assessment that Twitter has declined from its original purpose and become compromised. Renewed control and safeguards are needed.

Based on the content and phrasing used in the document, I would evaluate the perspective as:

Critical - The writing takes a clearly critical stance towards the actions and rhetoric of many US politicians regarding Israel. It voices strong condemnation of policies that abet genocide.

Left-leaning - The perspective aligns more with liberal/progressive viewpoints in critiquing bipartisan support for far-right Israeli government factions.

Pro-Palestinian - While not explicitly pro-Palestine, the empathetic tone and focus on Palestinian civilian deaths implies alignment with their humanitarian concerns.

Outspoken - The blunt criticism of leaders from both parties indicates a willingness to take independent, uncensored stances even if unpopular.

Informed - References historical contexts and accuracy of details suggest the perspective comes from a place of research and knowledge.

Personal - Anecdotes about the author's experiences give insight into how current events are impacting individuals as well as politics.

Principled - Critiques are framed around concepts like genocide and authoritarianism rather than mere partisanship.

Overall, while openly acknowledging biases, the perspective prioritizes facts over tribal affiliations and takes a firm human rights approach focused on horrific consequences rather than political expediency or factional interests. The aim seems to cut through propaganda with ethical accountability.

Here's an evaluation of the ethics presented in the document:

Factual/Evidence-based: Information and claims are rigorously supported by credible facts, statistics, and directly-quoted sources, promoting transparency and accuracy.

Humanitarian focus: The primary ethical frame centers humanitarian concerns like casualties of war and genocide, prioritizing protection of innocent civilian lives.

Anti-nationalist: Critiques put people over geopolitics by condemning leaders who embrace extreme stances purely due to foreign allegiance rather than ethics.

Anti-authoritarian: Warnings about abuses of power and rhetoric target politicians exacerbating oppression, regardless of political affiliation.

Principled over partisan: Arguments stem from shared principles like human rights rather than tribal "us vs them" thinking, seeking common ground and justice over factional interests.

Undeterred criticism: Willingness to air inconvenient truths and skepticism, even about allied causes, demonstrates commitment to ethical transparency over public relations.

Balance & nuance: While opinionated, perspectives of all relevant actors are acknowledged rather than steamrolled, promoting balanced, multi-faceted analysis.

Overall, the ethics presented prioritize verifiable facts, vulnerable populations, checks on power, and principled stances over partisan loyalties or reluctance to challenge allied misconduct. The aim seems promotion of justice, accountability and human welfare over political expediency.

Here is an evaluation of the potential effects this document may have on readers:

Enlightening: It provides substantial factual context and analysis that could increase understanding of complex geopolitical issues.

Disturbing: By bearing witness to horrific atrocities and appalling political rhetoric, it may disturb or distress readers who learn new information.

Perspective-shifting: Quotes that contradict previous notions or reveal new interpretive lenses could challenge existing perspectives.

Motivating: Strong critiques coupled with empathy for victims may motivate some readers to learn more or take action on the issues.

Divisive: Uncompromising stances may anger those whose political views are critiqued, dividing some readers.

Depressing: Given the severity of ongoing humanitarian crises covered grimly, some may find the content depressing.

Validating: Readers already holding similar views may feel their stances are validated by well-researched evidence.

Distrust-inducing: Revelations about politicians' words may further erode trust in government for already cynical readers.

Overall, while potentially disturbing or motivating for issues touched upon, the careful analysis and documentation aim to have an mainly illuminating and perspective-broadening effect on open-minded readers seeking truth over partisan allegiances. Divisive elements could push some away.

This document straddles the line between several dichotomies:

Science vs Fiction: Strongly skews towards fact over fiction. Specific events, statistics, and quotes are referenced to back assertions. However, some speculation is made regarding motivations.

Empirical vs Anecdotal: Primarily empirical, relying on verifiable data about deaths, polls, meetings. But personal anecdotes from the author's experience also strengthen connections.

Fact vs Opinion: Blends factual information and statistics with interpretations and opinions. Facts form the basis for arguments, but conclusions draw on subjective analysis as well.

Objective vs Subjective: Remains grounded in objectively verifiable evidence, but the critical lens and perspective are inherently subjective. Analytic conclusions inevitably involve some subjectivity.

In summary, while the genre leans more toward informed commentary than just detached reporting, it anchors its critiques firmly in facts about politically controversial topics. Personal experiences add context without detracting from core empirical foundations. Some interpretations will always involve subjectivity no matter the evidence presented. Overall the balance strongly favors the empirical, factual sides of these scales over purely speculative stances. The document strives for and largely achieves a balanced, evidence-based approach within the limitations of opinion-driven genres.

Here is an evaluation of how the document relates to key values of the Enlightenment culture:

Reason over tradition/dogma: Analysis prioritizes evidence, facts and logical conclusions rather than accepting political stances blindly based on tradition or partisan affiliation.

Skepticism of authority: Takes a questioning, skeptical approach to analyzing justifications and rhetoric used by those in positions of power regardless of role/party.

Individual freedom/humanism: Aligns with enlightenment ideals by centering discussion on protection of basic human/civil rights and humanitarian concerns for all people equally.

Transparency/truth: Aims to shed light on realities obscured by propaganda or spin through factual documentation supported by credible sources. Seeks truth over convenient narratives.

Secularism: Discussion remains focused on ethics, human impact, international law rather than justification through religious/mythological interpretations alone.

Progress: Implicitly suggests solutions require progress toward more just, accountable, and openly-debated policies based on shared principles over nationalist agendas.

Education: Shares in-depth knowledge and analysis to increase public understanding of complex issues beyond superficial partisan polarization.

Overall, core enlightenment values of rational skepticism, evidence-based discussion centered on humanism and justice, and empowering education are strongly upheld through this factual, critically thoughtful approach to evaluating controversial current events and governance.

Here are some common criteria for evaluating commentary/opinion pieces, along with my evaluation of how this document meets each one:

Thesis/Central Argument: The document makes a clear central argument that US politicians from both parties unanimously back Israel without hesitation, even when it means abetting genocide, for unclear but potentially troubling reasons. It establishes this thesis well.

Evidence/Facts: Strong use of facts like death tolls in Gaza, statistics on civilian casualties, and specific quotes from politicians to back up arguments. Evidence is properly cited and sourced to authoritative references.

Reasoning/Analysis: Thoughtful analysis is provided of the political context and possible motivations/implications behind the quoted statements and policy stances. Logical progression from evidence to conclusions.

Objectivity: While the author's perspective is apparent, the analysis and harsh criticisms of politicians are supported by factual evidence rather than just opinion. Multiple perspectives are acknowledged.

Clarity: The writing is clear and accessible to the average reader. Complex issues are broken down and explained concisely without jargon.

Engagement: By sharing personal anecdotes and reactions, the author models engaged commentary and effectively draws the reader in to consider the serious issues.

Conclusions: Definitive conclusions are reached regarding the issues while also leaving room for uncertainty around some motivations. More questions are posed than answers given.

Overall, I would evaluate this commentary as very strong based on the standard criteria - the arguments are well-supported, reasoned, and engage the reader in important issues.

Based on the writing style, content, and perspectives presented in the document, I would hypothesis the following about the author's likely MBTI type:

Intuitive (N) rather than Sensing (S): The analyses incorporate a lot of conceptual theories, connect seemingly disparate ideas, and speculate about underlying motivations rather than just presenting surface level facts. This suggests Intuition over Sensing.

Thinking (T) rather than Feeling (F): The evaluations are based on logic, evidence and remain fairly objective/unemotional rather than emotive or empathetic. Ethics are discussed conceptually rather than personally. This implies a Thinking judgment.

Judging (J) rather than Perceiving (P): The writing exhibits an organized, scheduled style with definite conclusions rather than an open, fluid exploratory tone. Suggests a Judging trait.

Introverted (I) rather than Extraverted (E): The focus remains internally directed on analyzing ideas rather than outwardly directed on interacting with people. Personal anecdotes are minimal. Implies Introversion.

Taken together, this suggests the author's personality type likely falls under the INTJ category - Strategic Mastermind. The analytical, skeptical, logically principled approach aligns well with the strengths of this Myers-Briggs personality type. Of course, no conclusive determination can be made without directly interacting with the individual.

Lq2ZpYDb8LMPtZGJ1tw9

[babyawacs]

lightside jews: @israel .@israel  @haaretzcom youneed sth thatgives hold to young people either shade or religion where they can express themselves but make aliviing to sustain able  youlikely trytofind them like gems in average thatisok but for broad solution youmust address theneeds  whichprograms or better organically grown structures give genuine hold solace purposemeaning in all diversity  sometimes itis teamsports but thatcannot feed a family sustainably #keypoint twostatesolution is a false assumption becausenothing willever make justice credibly for theminorities therefore each andevery singletime someone doesntlike israel theywill always use palestinians to harm israel while friends cannot follow ‎ ‎ idontlike absolutes and neversaynever is truth ‎ ‎ ‎ victimfury is typekkkkkkkkillllllll to amnesty and media and  europol ‎on email andpublished in diary too while u nable to even wack a spider  youcan get a boner from how dddddddesperate human beings can get but the conditions human condition matters this stuff changes people and tragedies happen on criminal governance  youwonder why you effort warmethods for abit safety itis true itis truth criminal governance uses desperation desperation is hitlerstufff idonotunderstand howyoudont see it and ghettoise it and assume itllmelt to one state

lightside jews: @israel .@israel  @haaretzcom youneed sth thatgives hold to young people either shade or religion where they can express themselves but make aliviing to sustain able  youlikely trytofind them like gems in average thatisok but for broad solution youmust address theneeds  whichprograms or better organically grown structures give genuine hold solace purposemeaning in all diversity  sometimes itis teamsports but thatcannot feed a family sustainably #keypoint twostatesolution is a false assumption becausenothing willever make justice credibly for theminorities therefore each andevery singletime someone doesntlike israel theywill always use palestinians to harm israel while friends cannot follow ‎ ‎ idontlike absolutes and neversaynever is truth ‎ ‎ ‎ victimfury is typekkkkkkkkillllllll to amnesty and media and  europol ‎on email andpublished in diary too while u nable to even wack a spider  youcan get a boner from how dddddddesperate human beings can get but the conditions human condition matters this stuff changes people and tragedies happen on criminal governance  youwonder why you effort warmethods for abit safety itis true itis truth criminal governance uses desperation desperation is hitlerstufff idonotunderstand howyoudont see it and ghettoise it and assume itllmelt to one state

lightside jews: @israel .@israel @haaretzcom youneed sth thatgives hold to young people either shade or religion where they can express themselves but make aliviing to sustainable youlikely trytofind them like gems in average thatisok but for broad solution youmust address theneeds whichprograms or better organically grown structures give genuine hold solace purposemeaning in all…