Some more context from a BBC article

But Yair Lapid, one of Israel’s most influential opposition politicians, was quick to offer his backing to the embattled prime minister. His Yesh Atid (There is a future) party hold 24 seats. He said the prime minister “has our safety net for a hostage deal if Ben-Gvir and Smotrich leave the government”.

Disinformation campaigns don’t necessarily need to come up with new rhetoric, they just need to normalize it so that it appears more acceptable to some people. Amplifying and normalizing this sort of thing among certain groups helps to solidify their views and further radicalize them.

It’s like any other form of advertising, you try to find something that sticks then beat it to death. Then you find something else, and repeat the process. In this case the antisemitic rhetoric is still unfortunately effective.

I got you

From [Wikipedia] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors’_prison) about debtors prison:

In 1963, members of the Council of Europe, an intergovernmental human rights organization based in Strasbourg, adopted the Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Article 1 of the protocol states that “no one shall be deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.” Currently, 42 states have ratified the protocol.[74]

Article about cash bail reform

I’m not sure if either of these apply to international flight risks.

Maybe a better option would be to seize British passports and place offenders on a no fly list.

Bazinga, pwnd another lib!

Looks like you didn’t read the definition of gas lighting either. Once again you’re making broad claims on a gross misunderstanding of the facts.

I’m not sure what the exact proposal is but it seems like Israel is saying the ceasefire allows them to achieve their objective while ceasing hostilities.

I’m skeptical Netanyahu won’t break the ceasefire as soon as it’s politically advantageous, but we’ll see.

From the BBC “live” coverage of the proposal

Netanyahu releases statement

A statement has just been released from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office.

It says he has authorised the Israeli negotiating team to “present an outline” for achieving the release of all hostages.

However, the statements goes on to say the war in Gaza will not end until all goals - including the “elimination” of Hamas’s armed wing and organisational capacities - are achieved.

It continues: “The exact outline proposed by Israel, including the conditional transition from stage to stage, allows Israel to maintain these principles.”

They are not.

You not only seem to be misunderstanding gas lighting still but also the messaging around the economy and the response to the Gaza invasion.

Fun fact: the economy can be doing great and poor people can still exist. Let that doozy sink in.

Another neat one: the Biden administration can want peace in Israel but not be willing to destroy the relationship we have with that country, alienate a huge portion of Biden voter, or destroy the political capital he has in order to get peace.

This is pretty interesting. This topic was discussed ad nauseum when it happened, there’s even a cross post that’s over a month old with 280 upvotes and 50 comments.

But on my feed post is showing as less than an hour old, and appears in at least 3 other communities for me.

Also the headline of the actual article is:

House passes bill to expand definition of antisemitism amid growing campus protests over Gaza war

Nowhere in the article does it mention making “Gaza genocide protests illegal”. I think misrepresenting the contents of the article and changing the headline could very well explain why the posts was removed from another community.

Not if you want the fighting to continue so that you can keep using it as a talking point to get Trump elected.

I’m not sure how this is gas lighting.

Here’s the Wikipedia article so we can make sure we’re using the same vocabulary.

I don’t think this is a fascist power grab. Benny Gantz is a centrist and a one of the main opposition leaders to Netanyahu.

This part is pretty well documented and agreed upon by political experts:

He’s been loudly advocating for a “day after plan” for the War in Gaza, i.e. what is the actual plan for Israels invasion and what are we going to do when it’s done? The day after plan is something Netanyahu has refused to provide. Many speculate that he hasn’t provided it because his plan is full occupation of Gaza and making it fully part of the Israeli state.

This part is conjecture and maybe wishful thinking on my part:

Netanyahu refuses to end the war so that he can stay in power. I think that Gantz recognizes the great international harm that the invasion of Gaza has done to Israel, which will only get worse until the invasion is over and Israel withdraws from Gaza. Gantz sees this as an opportunity make himself prime minister, end the invasion, and start some sort of peace process. This would allow him to start rebuilding Israels reputation and finding ways to establish a more stable peace.

Man that sounds fun, I wish I was slappin baby seal right now.

Right? I want a PHEV so range isn’t something I really need to think about.

I’ll try to clear it up a little.

Here’s a recent poll showing that support for ending the invasion into Gaza isn’t widely supported

There’s a lot of risk to Biden’s election chances if he withdraws his support for Israel, probably more risk than if he maintains his current actions. So withdrawing his support for Israel isn’t the clear cut winning decision that you seem to think it is.

Your threat of withholding your vote for Joe Biden unless he changes policy to match what you want will most likely result in Joe Biden losing the election. If he changes course and withdraws support as you want then he’ll probably lose more voters than he gains, costing him he election. If he stays the course and you don’t vote for Joe Biden he’s likely to lose the election.

You wanted a source that when the Secretary of the State said “we” she meant the state department?

From the article:

The quote is from a 2006 interview between Clinton and Eli Chmosky of the Jewish Press during her campaign for reelection to the US senate, and was part of a previously un-aired portion.

She wasn’t the secretary of state when she said it, and probably had no idea that she would ever be secretary of state. I’m not sure why you would think the “we” is the state department.

Additionally there’s no context around this quote so it’s a pretty significant leap to infer that “Hillary casually said we should have rigged a foreign election”. Her next sentence could have very well have been “But we didn’t, and we never will because that isn’t how we operate”. Or it could have been “We actually did try, but we failed because we ran out of funding”. Or “That’s what I’m hearing from the leaders of Fatah anyway”.

Hillary is a pretty big POS and it’s pretty easy to find shit she did that is horrible but this quote doesn’t match up with what you’re trying to show.

I recently replaced some insulation in my home and i found out it’s a lot more complicated than just put slap it in the wall. That is to say my understanding is pretty rudimentary so my explanation may not be the best.

Insulation in a house creates a temperature difference between the inside and the outside of your house. If the insulation doesn’t have a proper moisture barrier this can lead to water getting trapped on the inside of the insulation due to condensation. The water then comes leaking out if your walls, making everything extremely damp. The darkness inside the wall along with the dampness makes an ideal environment for the mold, which quickly spreads outside of the wall and into the rest of your damp house.

The past few days have taught me it’s a lot harder to get floating projects right than I thought it would be.

A little context:

According the Arab American Institute less than 1% of American citizens are Arab American.

Arab Americans do make up significant voting blocks in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Even though they are an extremely small minority, they may have to power to cost Joe Biden these key swing states and hand the election to Donald Trump.

Most older Americans support Biden’s response to Israel according to this poll. On the other hand younger Americans largely disapprove of his response. There’s a lot more nuance than given in my brief summary, this is just to illustrate the diversity of opinion among voters.

Joe Biden needs to balance rejecting young Americans who are unreliable voters and Arab Americans who are a very small minority with rejecting older Americans who are a large reliable voting block. Again there’s a lot more nuance here that I’m not going to go into, I’m merely pointing out that no matter what choice Joe Biden makes it’s going to alienate some voters and could potentially hand the election to Trump.