Unfortunately, I can see only 3 paragraphs of this article. Even in the archived version.

Due to your comment, I could assume you are involved in more direct actions. If that’s the case, more power to you!

Still let’s keep our eyes on the target. And the target is not the people you try to make fun of.

I suppose, one could argue that Arab countries could have applied efficient diplomatic pressure for a two-state solution if they cared enough to resolve this - decades ago. But I have the impression this would be only part of the story.

Another part is related to the West. The bottom line is that the Zionists are given weapons to commit a genocide in Gaza Palestine, and sustain an occupation for over 7 decades. This is related to the fact that Palestine is not recognised as a country by the US, Germany etc. As long as the traditional colonisers don’t sign these papers they will keep sending military equipement without repercussions internally or internationally.

Not too sure what you mean.

According to wiki 146 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states have recognized the State of Palestine, including the ones you mention:

• Egypt recognised Palestine 18 November 1988
• Morocco on 15 November 1988
• Algeria on 15 November 1988
• Saudi Arabia 16 November 1988

Relevant podcast, transcript included:

Breaking Down Sudan’s Struggle: What the World Is Missing

“This war is not a civil war, it’s a counterrevolutionary war against civilians,” says Sudanese organizer Nisrin Elamin.

I mean, the war in Sudan precedes the genocide in Gaza by six months, and we didn’t get much coverage then. I think in fact, the movement in solidarity with Palestinians has opened up the space for people to want to know more about Sudan.

I find this article to be to the point. Copy pasting a part of it.

Yet even as fires, floods, and heat waves become noticeably worse, Democrats and Republicans are further apart on the science of human-caused global warming than almost any other issue. Some observers have noted that the resistance to accepting climate science might not be about the science at all, but what attempts to fix the problem might entail. An experiment in 2014 found that Republicans who read a speech about the United States using environmentally friendly technologies to fuel the economy, versus a speech about enacting stringent environmental regulations and pollution taxes, were twice as likely as other Republicans to agree with mainstream climate science. In other words, it might be easier to just ignore a problem if you don’t like the proposed solution.

“When you make this shift from having an opinion to understanding the concern that underlies the opinion, it’s really a different kind of conversation,” Barish said.

The approach is reminiscent of “deep canvassing,” an outreach method developed by LGBTQ+ advocates that involves listening to people’s worries without judgment and helping them work through their conflicted feelings. Personal conversations like these have been shown to change people’s minds, with lasting effects.

I’ll try to put things into some historical perspective, as briefly as I can.

NATO was supposed to be a stabilizing force against the Soviet Bloc. During the cold war that was the rational.

Some claim that it was a tool to confirm and maintain US military hegemony and I tend to agree with this take. After approx 1993, through its interventions this started to be more and more obvious, especially to those living in the global South.

My source for NATO supporting Israel come from NATO’s site. Here are a couple of examples:

NATO Secretary General: “Israel does not stand alone”

Or “indirectly” by claiming in a joint press conference by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken

that we continue to believe clearly that the allegations of genocide are without merit

To my knowledge Chamberlain is pretty famous for his misjudgments. Anyways, thanks for answering my question

Honest question: has the USSR or Russia ever attempted to invade Canada? I only know that Canada had sent military around 1917 to fight against communism (well, what is called this way) but I don’t know much more on the topic.

Arguing against NATO for the reasons they state just means more people will suffer like the Palestinians do.

I don’t know why you say this. NATO has been supporting Israel, not Palestine

@[email protected] a gentle reminder. Please do try to keep count of how many articles you post in this community per day.

Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

I agree with what you say. Also about the headline, it was the one that was suggested from the “Generate title” thingy - so I just changed it to what is on the actual article.

I don’t think that’s really the point. The point is that Israel is killing civilians including children, not soldiers.

Up until recently, I kinda thought something like what the IEA report on The Oil and Gas Industry in Net Zero Transitions said:

Carbon capture, utilisation and storage is an essential technology for achieving net zero emissions in certain sectors and circumstances, but it is not a way to retain the status quo.

Lately, I tend to believe that the latter part of this sentence is what’s actually happening. That these topics of capture, removal and storage are promoted by Big Oil & Gas, to deflect the topic from the need of fossil fuels to stay in the ground, so that they keep doing business as usual.

I dunno, to me it sounded like an interesting experiment. Experiments sometimes go well, sometimes they fail.

Not so sure why you compare it to the solar roads tho, it’s not that the solar panels have to sustain the weight of the train, since they are going to be between the rails. Of course there are a tone of things that can go wrong. One thing for example that made me wonder - and it is not addressed in this article - is in relation to the vibrations of the rails. Solar panels don’t respond well to vibrations, at all. But, they also mention that the initial test went well and they got the permits to test them for spring of 2025. Let’s see?

In a way my initial reaction reading the title was very similar: we know this stuff already. Then I thought of taking a look at the article and realised there were several stuff mentioned I was not aware about, apart from this new memo I mean. I also liked the pictures from the archives and the links to the documents as reference to hat they say, so I thought it was totally worth sharing after all.

Apart from that for me revisiting a topics through the lens of another author/person sometimes helps me find actual answers or perhaps reframe the question: What can we do?

I would argue that the issue is the model of endless growth of capitalism because this is what drives energy consumption.

Relevant article that talks about Cop29 in relation to previous ones: What should we expect at COP29?

Last year at COP28 in Dubai, countries agreed to “transition away” from fossil fuels for the first time ever.

But the ‘UAE Consensus’ was less a consensus and more of a watered-down pledge, leaving many advocates disappointed as no promises were made to fully phase out oil, gas and coal.

This outcome was likely shaped by the presence of thousands of fossil fuel lobbyists at the event, which was itself hosted by a petrostate and led by the CEO of a state-owned oil company who openly dismissed the need for a fossil fuel phaseout.