I see the recognition, where are the hard conditionality or the security guardrails? If the PA doesn't cooperate, what leverage exists?
This move alone could have accomplished a lot of reforms. So far all I've seen is:
1) the PA supposedly end "pay for slay" where Palestinians that commit terrorist attacks or their family gets more money for more dead and injured victims or for longer prison terms (this program may have actually ended, it's just really hard to tell because of mixed signals),
2) Abbas condemn October 7th once in a letter to France and Saudi Arabia in June 2025 (for the first time and a little under 2 years after October 7th happened), and
3) the arrest of a person that committed a terrorist attack in France in the 1982.
I really hope there was a lot more behind the scenes, because those seem pretty small.
Having elections they should have had for many years now wouldn't be that impressive either.
Why not condition recognition on 1) releasing the hostages and 2) Hamas / Palestinian Islamic Jihad / Al-Qassam / etc disarming? Those 2 things could end the current war.
It's good you recognize the need of a re-education program and regime change. Once one side gets re-education and the right leadership, the conflict can be solved peacefully and both sides can coexist productively. You seem to have concluded the wrong party needs those things.
There is a fringe minority in Israel (who seem to be very influential politically due to various reasons) who are only marginally better than Hamas, though.
Some have spent 2x more money than Israel. Israel is 10th. I haven't heard anybody around me mention Liberia or the Marshall Islands, maybe a handful of times in my life.
These are the top 10 Foreign Principals from 2016 - 2024.
Foreign Principal Total Spending
1. Government of Liberia $350,486,671
2. Government of the Marshall Islands $283,901,646
3. Government of China $277,692,350
4. Japan External Trade Organization $277,638,402
5. Government of Saudi Arabia $238,415,218
6. Government of Bermuda $192,046,623
7. Barzan Holdings $155,775,778
8. ANO TV-Novosti $147,069,172
9. Government of the Bahamas $136,148,426
10 Government of Ireland $132,165,695
No Israeli principal in the top 10. It's obfuscated but Russia is in there (ANO TV-Novosti) and Qatar (Barzan Holdings).
Also, in the link you shared of "Industries", Israel is 7th in single issue. Some of the issues 1-6 have 10x levels of money spent. I wish it were broken down even more. I'm most interested in what makes up "miscellaneous issues".
Sure, maybe you're right, and the foreign countries purchasing our politicians is a much larger problem than just the one that Israel presents (though, I'm rather skeptical in terms of actual impact on foreign policy and on who gets elected in our country). I still don't think Russia deserves much mention in terms of election interference; they gotta step up their game if they want to compete.
How little do you know about the experience of Jews in Nazi Germany?
> And much like the useless British-colonial state that governed Israel then, the vestigial British state in India which is as internet upon Anglo-American triumph today, can't and will do jack shit for them.
Are you saying that Indian people wouldn't be allowed to immigrate to India?
Minutes of research say current Indian law allows people of Indian descent but not citizens to get Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) — a special immigration status for foreign nationals of Indian origin.
You're eligible if you are:
1. A former Indian citizen (who gave up Indian citizenship, e.g., to get U.S. or UK citizenship), or
2. A descendant (up to great-grandparent level) of an Indian citizen, or
3. The spouse of an Indian citizen or an OCI cardholder (subject to conditions)
With OCI, you can have:
1. Unlimited stay in India
2. Right to work, own property, and open bank accounts.
India could change it's laws, keep all the non-citizens out (or even citizens, what can't we imagine in this fantasy story). India could deny OCI to most every person that applies for its green card like status. But under current laws in your unlikely story, they seem like they'll do something.
I'd expect they'd fly as many Indian people as they could out of the US like many countries do in times of war. Not that this scenario will ever come to pass.
Plenty of people criticize Israel and are not antisemites. This is true of most Israelis. They generally criticize Israel in non-antisemitic ways. It is quite easy to do so.
Roger Waters is an antisemite.
Do people who have known Roger Waters his entire life think he is an antisemite because of his obsessive criticism of Israel, or because of all the other anti Jewish things he has said and done AND his singular obsession with Israel?
>In the 2023 documentary The Dark Side of Roger Waters, the
>saxophonist Norbert Stachel recounts Waters refusing to eat >vegetarian >dishes in Lebanon, calling them “Jew food”. When >the musician explained >that most of his relatives had been >killed in the Holocaust, the singer did >a crude and offensive >impersonation of a Polish peasant woman, and said, >“Oh, I can >help you feel like you’re meeting your long-lost relatives. I >can introduce you to your dead grandmother.”
>
>Tellingly, Stachel also claimed to overhear Waters telling a >girlfriend that Judaism was not a race, saying, “They’re >white European men that grow beards and they practise the >religion Judaism, but they’re no different than me; they have >no difference in their background or their history or their >culture or anything.”
He did write the forward to Shahak's Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years. The book is framed as an attack on Jewish fundamentalism.
Werner Cohn, Professor Emeritus at the University of British Colombia, writes: “He [Shahak] says (pp. 23-4) that "Jewish children are actually taught" to utter a ritual curse when passing a non-Jewish cemetery.[b] He also tells us (p. 34) that "both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands....On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God... but on the other he is worshiping Satan..." I did take the trouble to question my orthodox rabbi nephew to find what might be behind such tall tales. He had no clue. If orthodox Jews were actually taught such hateful things, surely someone would have heard. Whom is Dr. Shahak kidding?”
Edward Said wrote the foreward to the second edition, calling Shahak “one of the most remarkable individuals in the contemporary Middle East.” Said writes that the book is “nothing less than a concise history of classic and modern Judaism, insofar as these are relevant to the understanding of modern Israel.”
At best Said endorses antisemites.
Tucker Carlson hosted Darryl Cooper, a podcaster known for promoting Holocaust revisionism and making historically inaccurate claims about World War II. He labeled Winston Churchill as the "chief villain" of the conflict. They perpetuated downplayed Nazi atrocities.
I hadn't heard of them either so I checked online. I usually check Media Bias / Fact Check and AllSides when I encounter a news source with which I'm not familiar.
1. Media Bias / Fact Check:
Funded by / Ownership
The Cradle lacks transparency as it does not disclose who owns it. Revenue is generated through donations.
Analysis / Bias
The Cradle’s content frequently opposes Israeli policies and Western geopolitical stances, particularly focusing on West Asian politics. Articles often critique far-right Israeli politicians and highlight regional issues from a perspective that challenges mainstream Western narratives. Articles and headlines often use loaded emotional language in opposition to Israeli policy like this Cracks deepen in Israel as opposition head issues ‘ultimatum’ to Netanyahu. This story is correctly sourced from the Times of Israel and Haaretz.
Editorially, The Cradle consistently frames Israel negatively with stories such as this On Israel and rape. While this article is sourced properly from credible sources, it is entirely one-sided in focusing on Israel. When reporting on the United States, they often report negatively on President Joe Biden like this ‘Biden has the blood of innocent people on his hands’: Former US official.
The Cradle Rated Lean Left in January 2024 Independent Review
An independent AllSides reviewer opted to give The Cradle an initial rating of Lean Left.
While it demonstrated a clear opposition to Israel and the West, The Cradle did not appear to weigh in on other topics relevant to right-left U.S. politics. Site searches for "liberal," "conservative," "right-wing," and "left-wing" yielded few results.
It looked like AI slop, but if you click through, they’re actually quoting their sources verbatim. (No clue how the source compiles its ratings, however.)
Who is your customer? Why should they use your product over alternatives to solve their problem / improve their life?
This is the realm of product management and product marketing as much as general "marketing".
Read The Mom Test. Follow what it says to do practical user research, so that you can effectively target your niche within time management / productivity tools.
After that, here's a good video from a YC person about launches, and why you should think of them as things to do over and over as opposed to just once:
> While antisemitism in the U.S. is often written about through a “both sides” lens, our evidence — the first of its kind in testing hypotheses through experiments on a large repre- sentative sample — suggests the problem of antisemitism is much more serious on the right than the left. This evidence confirms that the antisemitism that has been on prominent display in white nationalist protests is not merely confined to a tiny group of extremists; antisemitic attitudes appear quite common among young conservatives, and much more so than among older conservatives or among liberals of any age.
This view isn't supported by studies in this area. They do find antisemitism on the left and the center of the US political spectrum - just more on the right.
> While antisemitism in the U.S. is often written about through a “both sides” lens, our evidence — the first of its kind in testing hypotheses through experiments on a large repre-
sentative sample — suggests the problem of antisemitism is much more serious on the right than the left. This evidence confirms that the antisemitism that has been on prominent display in white nationalist protests is not merely confined to a tiny group of extremists; antisemitic attitudes appear quite common among young conservatives, and much more so than among older conservatives or among liberals of any age.
I live in Europe, things are very different here. ChatGPT is a global program so I'm not sure why we should talk about USA specifically. Antisemitism is on the rise in Europe due to Muslim immigration, and the left supports or downplays those acts while the right tries to take it seriously.
So like how Trump said there were fine people among that crowd, the left in Europe says there are fine people among the crowds that goes and harasses and murders Jews. You shouldn't judge individuals for being from a group, but that isn't what is happening here, they are trying to downplay the acts of individuals just because they belong to a specific group.
From what I have seen and observed, I wouldn't be surprised if things aren't that different in Europe from the US, just somewhat worse on the whole. That is, antisemitism is found on all sides of the political spectrum including in the center. Also, that antisemitism is most common, and often most overt, on the right / far right. Share any studies you have supporting or refuting that though.
This covers many countries, and does have multiple years in many of them, but it doesn't distinguish by political views. Just gender, age, and religious affiliation by country.
> They do find antisemitism on the left and the center of the US political spectrum - just more on the right.
You know who says that? The same US intelligence agencies that conspired to censor twitter and who said the hunter biden laptop wasn't real. Who actually supports Israel? Consistently the US right and the Republicans.
The Canadian government leaned heavily into this fabrication early in 2022 for the trucker protest. They called it white-supremacist (despite videos of the crowd dancing to Banghra with visibly Sikh truckers - one of the largest minorities in Canadian shipping) and accused the event of being anti semitic because one of the organizers blogged something silly about Jews in banking years before. During this time a leftist government consultant tweeted “You know all those loud mouthed bags of human feces, aka the Jewish White Supremacists; when we liberate Palestine and they have to go back to where they come from, they will return to being low voiced bitches of thier (sic) Christian/Secular White Supremacist Masters.” and it was ignored until the prime minister was finally forced to acknowledge it.
The are thousands of calls on Twitter for the jews the be pushed into the sea and none of them are from conservatives.
"Far right" has become a term for things the left says but doesn't want to own.
> Anything to do with Israel/Palestine/West Bank is unreliable; the boss is a zionist, and so are a lot of the senior staff, so it's not surprising. But WP is a million times better than the web that search engines expose.
Is there good evidence for this claim? Evidence is useful, especially for these claims of general bias.
On the contrary, in general Wikipedia's content is likely biased against Israel when considering its general overall political preferences / bias.
> 5 Studies Find Wikipedia Bias
> Five studies, including two from Harvard researchers, have found a left-wing bias at Wikipedia:
> * A Harvard study found Wikipedia articles are more left-wing than Encyclopedia Britannica.
> * Another paper from the same Harvard researchers found left-wing editors are more active and partisan on the site.
> * A 2018 analysis found top-cited news outlets on Wikipedia are mainly left-wing.
> * Another analysis using AllSides Media Bias Ratings™ found that pages on American politicians cite mostly left-wing news outlets.
> * American academics found conservative editors are 6 times more likely to be sanctioned in Wikipedia policy enforcement.
I find it interesting that your way of proving anti-Zionist sentiment is to demonstrate that there are quantifiably more leftist editors on Wikipedia. That does not demonstrate your thesis of anti-Israeli bias. Plenty of people who at least claim to be leftists are profuse in their support of Israel.
Neither should it surprise that a scholarly endeavor for bored young people on the internet tends to tilt leftward: there is a big education differential between political poles, and a strong demographic tilt based on age. To put it in a nutshell: if boomers spent their time writing citations instead of pounding out all-caps screeds about ivermectin in the comments sections of local newspapers, there would be a more robust wikipedia contingent.
> I find it interesting that your way of proving anti-Zionist sentiment is to demonstrate that there are quantifiably more leftist editors on Wikipedia. That does not demonstrate your thesis of anti-Israeli bias. Plenty of people who at least claim to be leftists are profuse in their support of Israel.
It’s not definitive proof of anti-Israel bias - it is, however, evidence. As opposed to the unsubstantiated assertion I responded to.
Evidence of what? A leftward slant in Wikipedia, if you believe the conclusion of these studies (or the summaries of them - I haven’t read them all). And it's easy to see that such a slant would broadly coincide with somewhat less support - though far from zero support - for Israel in 2022 and the past couple decades.
I’m not sure how leftward the slant is. It could be slight. It could also not be relevant in specific areas (such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). I didn’t exhaustively research the topic (nor did I believe Wikipedia had any specific leftward slant before today.) If you find anything useful, please share your findings - happy to read!
“Quantifiably more leftist editors on Wikipedia” isn’t a good summary of the headlines of those 5 studies.
To your other point, number of editors matter - and the Israel-antagonists presumably outnumber the Israel-supporters - but it’s far from the only thing that matters. To name a few more things that make an editor more or less influential: the number of edits made, the prominence of their edits (for example if it is in the introduction vs elsewhere in an article), the degree to which the edits are neutral vs slanted, and the relative power they have as editors.
> As opposed to the unsubstantiated assertion I responded to.
I'm not going to try to substantiate it; if you're not already aware that Wikimedia is owned and run by a self-confessed Zionist, you can look it up for yourself. I don't engage with the Zionists on Wikipedia; it's a waste of time, you can't win. Some Zionist admin will come along and declare that you lost the dispute. I'm not inclined to take up arms here either; it's against the rules, and anyway, in matters of this sort, you can't defeat your adversary by producing evidence or substantiation. This is an issue that people on both sides are strongly emotionally engaged in.
> Anything to do with Israel/Palestine/West Bank is unreliable [and in favor of Israel]
This is the claim that needs substantiation, not that a key Wikipedia person supports Zionism or identifies as a Zionist, or that various employees or volunteers support Israel. Those other claims don't seem significant.
The opposite is also true - that various volunteers are antagonistic towards Israel. It's also likely that some employees are antagonistic towards Israel. You can find plenty of people's experiences discussing the same pattern you describe but with different political views - some antagonistic admin coming along and declaring that you lost the dispute.
Various "bosses" at Wikipedia have different views, ideologies and identities. Given that, what on Wikipedia can be trusted, and what can't be? What's special about views towards Israel?
Evidence is useful, but when viewing people as "adversaries", and if trying to "defeat" them in general, the game is already diminished or lost - for most everyone involved. Little productive conversation can occur.
> This is an issue that people on both sides are strongly emotionally engaged in.
Yes. But that is true of many issues in the world.
This move alone could have accomplished a lot of reforms. So far all I've seen is:
1) the PA supposedly end "pay for slay" where Palestinians that commit terrorist attacks or their family gets more money for more dead and injured victims or for longer prison terms (this program may have actually ended, it's just really hard to tell because of mixed signals),
2) Abbas condemn October 7th once in a letter to France and Saudi Arabia in June 2025 (for the first time and a little under 2 years after October 7th happened), and
3) the arrest of a person that committed a terrorist attack in France in the 1982.
I really hope there was a lot more behind the scenes, because those seem pretty small.
Having elections they should have had for many years now wouldn't be that impressive either.
Why not condition recognition on 1) releasing the hostages and 2) Hamas / Palestinian Islamic Jihad / Al-Qassam / etc disarming? Those 2 things could end the current war.