‘Real Starvation Stuff’ Given its Nazi history and its status as one of Israel’s most important allies, Germany had always been unlikely to recognize a Palestinian state before it was established. But Mr. Merz was determined to be a part of the diplomatic efforts. A day after Mr. Macron’s announcement, the German chancellor, the French president and Mr. Starmer issued a joint statement calling for an end to the war, the release of hostages, the disarmament of Hamas, an enormous influx of aid and a halt to any Israeli plans to annex more territory. The trio held a call the next morning. They agreed the situation was “appalling,” according to a British written summary of the meeting. Food was trickling into Gaza, but not fast enough. There was no prospect of a cease-fire. Image Friedrich Merz and Emmanuel Macron are talking in front of a building being guarded by men in military uniforms. Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany with Mr. Macron in Berlin last month. The next day, without telling the Germans, Mr. Macron recognized the state of Palestine.Credit...John MacDougall/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images The three nations — known as the E3 — have more influence when they are aligned. Their unity also gives them political cover domestically. So Germany has not criticized either France or Britain on their decisions to recognize a Palestinian state, in part, a senior German official said, because it needs E3 unity to help manage its own sharp domestic critics on Gaza. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT On Sunday, July 27, Mr. Merz spoke with Mr. Netanyahu directly. The chancellor left the call frustrated, according to a person familiar with the conversation, who spoke anonymously given the sensitivity of the subject, after the Israeli prime minister insisted during the call that there was no starvation in Gaza and that Hamas was stealing the ample food being delivered. The next day, Mr. Merz and Mr. Macron called in to a meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Starmer in Scotland. The Europeans urged Mr. Trump to pressure Mr. Netanyahu to allow more aid into Gaza, according to an official who spoke on the condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the subject. After the meeting, Mr. Trump acknowledged the dire situation. “That’s real starvation stuff, I see it, and you can’t fake that,” Mr. Trump told reporters. “We have to get the kids fed.” A Unity Conference The day after Mr. Trump left Britain, Mr. Starmer made it official. He would recognize Palestine unless Israel moved swiftly to end the war and embark on a path toward a permanent peace. Mr. Lammy echoed his boss in a speech at the United Nations. “It is with the hand of history on our shoulders that His Majesty’s Government therefore intends to recognize the State of Palestine,” he said. He received a standing ovation. Canada joined Britain and France soon after. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Mr. Starmer’s announcement surprised the Germans. They already viewed Mr. Macron’s announcement as counterproductive, hardening Israel’s tone and Hamas’s stance in cease-fire negotiations in Qatar, which had collapsed. That same day, Mr. Powell began sharing drafts of the British plan with the allies in the hopes of seizing a moment when heightened global outrage was being met with new examples of political will. Mr. Powell and others in the British government had been working on the plan for months, and had struggled to get Arab leaders to sign on. Now, along with France and Germany, they tried again. It was unclear to the diplomats whether Mr. Trump would support the plan, which incorporated some of the same ideas that officials in foreign capitals had proposed in the past to no avail. According to two European officials, it called for a technocratic Palestinian government for Gaza linked to a reformed Palestinian Authority; an international security force; a full withdrawal by Israel; U.S.-led monitoring of the cease-fire; and — ultimately — two independent states. The British plan also presented an “annex of implementation” with a timeline that included the previously scheduled U.N. conference, sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia, aimed at reviving efforts toward a two-state solution. The plan envisioned Arab commitments at the conference and an eventual cease-fire in Gaza, culminating in a Saudi- and French-led peace plan for two states at the U.N. General Assembly in September.
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment