This article essentially says “These protests are unlikely to change government agendas because governments currently don’t support a ceasefire.” it doesn’t explain why this is the case.

That point is neither enlightening nor interesting.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

“It’s always very hard to make a crystal-clear causal connection between a demonstration and the effect it has on politics,” says Jacquelien van Stekelenburg, a professor of social change and conflict at Amsterdam’s Vrije Universiteit.

In the wake of Hamas’ October 7 attacks, in which Israeli authorities initially said 1,400 people were killed — a figure later revised down to 1,200 — and another 240 were abducted, Anthony Albanese used the “defend itself” line.

By early November, Foreign Minister Penny Wong was warning at a press conference that the “international community will not accept ongoing civilian deaths”.

Canberra’s ambassador to the UN, James Larsen, said the fact “the resolution did not recognise terror group Hamas as the perpetrator of the October 7 attack” meant his country couldn’t vote.

Jewish leaders have highlighted rising anti-Semitism since the war began in October, including at some demonstrations Australia, and Israel has warned its citizens to reconsider any travel abroad.

In the days before the march, White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said Israel had agreed to daily four-hour humanitarian pauses in fighting.

The original article contains 1,058 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

“Oooooo, you see. We don’t listen to you.”

(backroom talks)

“How do we make it less obvious!?”

Sadly enough they are not chanting release the hostages.

A ceasefire does nothing to stop Hamas from existing, it literally helps those piece of shit terrorists to regroup and settle in with more human shields.