Another tiresome scribe by SS that isn't a discussion, but is, rather, front-loaded with language-foundational conclusions: genocide, war-crimes, etc. You speak of the atrocities toward other countries, but never the atrocities committed by other countries, but never of the atrocities committed by other countries. Your lawsuit will go nowhere, but what concerns me is your thinking. If you just think Israel should cease to exist, just say so. But if so, please explain where everyone should go and just how that would be accomplished. If Israel is to just stop, then please explain what Israel should do when attacked, just sit there and accept any and all rocket fire, bombings, and civilian slaughter?

I am not by any means an Israel nationalist, nor do I support BB or the settlers' movement. But those who use 'genocide' and 'war crime' and only see one side as the cause, I wonder seriously about that person's thinking process and what underlies such myopia. Especially when it results in a robotic repetition of articles that are essentially the same article with all the same front-loaded assumptions.

From what I'm reading, the sanctions aren't working regarding Putin. Other markets (e.g., India, and China I think) are enabling Russia to avoid the impact. Though the collapse of Syria might be indicating a "problem" for them, as well as their "recruitment" of North Korean military against Ukraine?)

And then there's Iran, funding the "other side" (and sometimes directly participating in the attacks). Seems like the government of Iran has been *ahem* creating a problem for the U.S. and Israel a problem for quite awhile, at this point. (Just ask president Carter, RIP.)

. . . or a snowball's chance in Gaza.

OK, so you are posting the article you used to make your article, all based on an ideology. You know what word is missing from both your article and the Salon article? "Hamas" Not even mentioned. Because of the inconvenient truth that Israel is attempt to completely destroy Hamas, the group that crossed the border with, ahem, genocidal intent against Israel. Both sides use the word to describe what the other side is doing or intends to do.

I just read something that the US Government giving money to other countries is like "watering your nextdoor neighbor's lawn while your house is on fire". I'm fine anyone wants to mail money to help another country, but I don't think the US should tax us and send our tax dollars overseas when we have so many problems here.

I know for a fact that anyone in Davis who owns shares in a military arms manufacturer doesn’t ride a bike.

I just asked Google if defense companies were in index funds:

Yes, defense firms are included in various index funds, particularly those focused on the aerospace and defense sector or broader market indexes like the S&P 500.

Most people I know (including many that are big bike riders) have 401k money in S&P 500 indes funds so we technically own shares in military arms manufacturers...

The larger point is that most of those people don't actually feel hatred towards Palestinians or towards people who could benefit from all the money taxpayers are spending on war.... They just like money a lot.

Can't help but be amused by that observation. Kind of reminds me how most people also don't feel hatred toward chickens, cows, pigs . . . (and according to our new president, dogs and cats).

But they do like McNuggets.

In other words, they try not to think about it - partly because they aren't directly exposed to the "process".

This is the main motivation for our chronic lack of "peace".

To paraphrase George Carlin, the "public sucks. Except for this audience, of course - I understand that".