

Sounds like you’ve gone down tbe blackpill/incel rabbit hole, hopefully these videos might help. You should also at least read books such as cPTSD by Pete Walker if you’re not looking for therapy, which is for everyone.
Say no to authoritarianism, say yes to socialism. Free Palestine 🇵🇸 Everyone deserves Human Rights


Sounds like you’ve gone down tbe blackpill/incel rabbit hole, hopefully these videos might help. You should also at least read books such as cPTSD by Pete Walker if you’re not looking for therapy, which is for everyone.


You can change, we all can


Oh thank God, I was worried something illegal was happening at first
Mineral Oil would work and is food safe


In fact Israel regularly raids Palestinian funerals, to further terrorize survivors


Iran International is a UK outlet


The Guardian reported that Iran International’s funding was linked to Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman. According to the report, Iran International received $250 million from Saudi Arabia for launching the channel. The report also said that the editorial content had been influenced by its investors.[1]
According to The Wall Street Journal, “[some] journalists at Iran International have complained that management is pushing a pro-Saudi, anti-Islamic Republic line”. WSJ quoted a former correspondent at the TV station commenting that “a systematic and very persistent push” was made during her time there.[8]
This outlet has major financial links to Saudi Arabia. I’ll wait for a reputable outlet like Drop Site News for any accurate reporting


Is that right, Israel?




The only silver lining is the sheer staggering incompetency at every level


It’s undeniable at this point


The wars aren’t meant to be won, their meant to destabilize and be profited off of. In that sense, they’re all successful


Legacy star wars is still goated imo
Same with Stargate SG-1
Foundation too for a modern sci-fi show imo
I like picking and choosing what parts of star wars or star trek I like and consider my personal canon
Although, all REAL space commies stan Kira. No exceptions 😤


DEATH DEATH TO THE IDF


Palestinian deaths treated as less newsworthy: Despite Gaza suffering 34x more casualties than Israel, BBC gave Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage per fatality and ran almost equal numbers of humanising victim profiles (279 Palestinians vs 201 Israelis).
Systematic language bias favouring Israelis: BBC used emotive terms 4 times more for Israeli victims, applied ‘massacre’ 18x more to Israeli casualties, and used ‘murder’ 220 times for Israelis vs once for Palestinians.
Suppression of genocide allegations: BBC presenters shut down genocide claims in over 100 documented instances whilst making zero mention of Israeli leaders’ genocidal statements, including Netanyahu’s biblical Amalek reference.
Muffling Palestinian voices: The BBC interviewed significantly fewer Palestinians than Israelis (1,085 v 2,350) on TV and radio, while BBC presenters shared the Israeli perspective 11 times more frequently than the Palestinian perspective (2,340 v 217).
https://cfmm.org.uk/bbc-on-gaza-israel-one-story-double-standards/
Over 400 media figures, including 111 BBC staffers, have signed a letter demanding the BBC remove board member Robbie Gibb over conflict of interest on Gaza and the Middle East and his “consistent efforts to stifle legitimate coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza”
https://institute.aljazeera.net/en/ajr/article/3250
Today Drop Site News is publishing a landmark investigation about the BBC’s coverage of Israel’s unrelenting assault on Gaza by British journalist Owen Jones. His report is based on interviews with 13 journalists and other BBC staffers who offer remarkable insights into how senior figures within the BBC’s news operation skewed stories in favor of Israel’s narratives and repeatedly dismissed objections registered by scores of staffers who, throughout the past 14 months, demanded that the network uphold its commitment to impartiality and fairness. Jones’s investigation of the BBC has three main components: a deeply reported look into the internal complaints from BBC journalists, a quantitative assessment of how the BBC characterizes the year-long siege on Gaza, and a review of the histories of the people behind the coverage—and, in particular, one editor, Raffi Berg.
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/bbc-civil-war-gaza-israel-biased-coverage


To fascists, yes


First documented in the late Bronze Age, about 3200 years ago, the name Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη; Arabic: , Filastin), is the conventional name used between 450 BC and 1948 AD to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River and various adjoining lands. This work explores the evolution of the concept, histories, identity, languages and cultures of Palestine from the Late Bronze Age to the modern era. Moreover, Palestine history is often taught in the West as a history of a land, not as Palestinian history or a history of a people. This book challenges colonial approach to Palestine and the pernicious myth of a land without a people (Masalha 1992, 1997) and argues for reading the history of Palestine with the eyes of the indigenous people of Palestine. The Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine; their local roots are deeply embedded in the soil of Palestine and their autochthonous identity and historical heritage long preceded the emergence of a local Palestinian nascent national movement in the late Ottoman period and the advent of Zionist settler-colonialism before the First World War.


There is the Saif al-Islam Gaddafi Isratin proposal:
The Gaddafi Isratin proposal intended to permanently resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict through a secular, federalist, republican one-state solution, which was first articulated by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, at the Chatham House in London and later adopted by Muammar Gaddafi himself.
Creation of a binational Jewish-Palestinian state called the “Federal Republic of the Holy Land”;
Partition of the state into five administrative regions, with Jerusalem as a city-state;
Return of all Palestinian refugees;
Supervision by the United Nations of free and fair elections on the first and second occasions;
Removal of weapons of mass destruction from the state;
Recognition of the state by the Arab League.
Similar to the Binational State Solution advocated by the Palestinian leadership and some others prior to the Nakba.
The Zionist position changed in 1928, when the pragmatic Palestinian leaders agreed to the principle of parity in a rare moment in which clannish and religious differences were overcome for the sake of consensus. The Palestinian leaders feared that without parity the Zionists would gain control of the political system. The unexpected Palestinian agreement threw the Zionist leaders into temporary confusion. When they recovered, they sent a refusal to the British, but at the same time offered an alternative solution: the partitioning of Palestine into two political units.
On 31 August 1947, UNSCOP presented its recommendations to the UN General Assembly. Three of its members were allowed to put forward an alternative recommendation. The majority report advocated the partition of Palestine into two states, with an economic union. The designated Jewish state was to have most of the coastal area, western Galilee, and the Negev, and the rest was to become the Palestinian state. The minority report proposed a unitary state in Palestine based on the principle of democracy. It took considerable American Jewish lobbying and American diplomatic pressure, as well as a powerful speech by the Russian ambassador to the UN, to gain the necessary two-thirds majority in the Assembly for partition. Even though hardly any Palestinian or Arab diplomat made an effort to promote the alternative scheme, it won an equal number of supporters and detractors, showing that a considerable number of member states realized that imposing partition amounted to supporting one side and opposing the other.
This ongoing Settler Colonialism annexing the West Bank continues to make a Two State Solution less possible, it has already divided the West Bank into hundreds of isolated enclaves. This Apartheid State needs to end as a binational state for all Palestinians and Israelis.

Here are resources by Historians about a One-State Solution. In many ways, it’s already a One-State, an Apartheid State, this change would be the emancipation of Palestinians to bring forth a One-State with equal rights.
The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
No, you’re just angrily venting indistinguishable to someone who is, making up my position, and getting angry at what you made up. If that’s how you act when someone offers any sort of help than go ahead and ignore it.