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!
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 article does a horrible job of explaining it.
Russia-adjacent countries have a strong incentive to support Israel if they want to purchase missile defense systems. Finland signed a deal earlier this week. Many countries around the world use Israeli-made/designed military systems, and they don’t want to jeopardize their continued access to those systems.
The other factor is non-public intelligence - tack this sentence before every IDF tweet: “We have shared intelligence with our allies and are making a tiny bit public:”
Or they support Israel against terrorism because that’s the moral thing to do
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.
okay, how do you propose destroying hamas and saving the kids? :3
btw~ you’re being attacked from three different countries, you’ve got limited time here
Not by making the same mistakes the US did in afganistan and iraq.
Bombs dont kill terrorists, it creates them
But you’re not arguing in favor of destroying Hamas. You’re supporting genocide. Which, incidentally, will radicalize any survivors, leading to more joining Hamas.
Since you haven’t your own question, how about just shut the fuck up??
Sadly enough they are not chanting release the hostages.
It’s implied. A ceasefire gives a chance to negotiate for hostages and for peace.
People are not good with history. Take a gander at how Hamas reacted with literally every ceasefire in the past. What happens when there’s a ceasefire and Hamas strikes in the middle of it and more people die. What will people chant then? “We are sorry you got killed”?
“Oooooo, you see. We don’t listen to you.”
(backroom talks)
“How do we make it less obvious!?”
