Why would it? We have lots of friends of X groups that don’t need to.
The strongest own goal Israel’s political opponents in America play against themselves is in pretending this is entirely a conspiracy. It’s not. Until recently, Israel was popular. Against the background of few voters caring about foreign policy at all, that meant small margins were foreign-policywise meaningful while continuing to be electorally irrelevant.
Israel is a terrorist regime that commits genocide against Palestinians. What use is it if the ones fighting it are terrorists as well? In your hypothetical world where Iran is the strongest regional power, what does that accomplish? The Palestinians trade Israeli and Hamas's oppression for being a protectorate of the Islamic Republic of Iran? I never really understood this line of thinking.
Interesting idea. I've definitely felt this pain on several occasions. Somewhat ironic, but I think the hardest part of pulling this off is getting a founder to stay focused/continuously reach for such a tool (e.g. know when to ask for help).
My hunch is the same. Some fraction of founders want to do this because they love the autonomy. So a tool that keeps them on the right track might feel like a nagging parent vs. a true copilot. Will see how I can better qualify this idea and if it is even worth working on. Let me know if you're open for a 15-30 minute call so I can pick your brain about this pain.
Discussion about Trump winning had like 2k comments. There was also that Supreme Court ruling from earlier in the year about how presidents can't be held liable for criminal conduct or whatever.
HN is almost certainly not the place for it.
HN is a much better place than most of the Internet to discuss politics, this I know.
AIPAC is dwarfed in comparison to some other countries in terms of wielding influence. Just look at how much Qatar has spent trying to influence the top universities in the world.
Could very well just be about Slootman retiring. He is considered one of the most savvy and aggressive tech ceos out there and is arguably impossible to truly replace.
> He is considered one of the most savvy and aggressive tech ceos out there
By whom? I used to work at Snowflake, and from what I remember people on the inside were far more excited about the founders than they were about the CEO.
I got the impression that he was meeting expectations for the CEO job, but no more. Though that's a pretty high bar, given position of the company and the industry.
While that's technically true, they were elected in 2006 and since then no elections have been held. Not only that, members of the Hamas murdered Fatah rivals in the years that followed. Not to mention that most of the population today in Gaza are so young that they didn't even vote Hamas in.
So while they have majority support, it's not like they've had any real alternative.
It doesn't matter. Hamas is not a member of the ICJ. The state of palestine is a member but hamas aren't recognized as the representive of the state of palestine.
Additionally, the state of palestine is not a party to this case.
So no, the icj cannot tell hamas to do anything. The only people it can give orders to in this case are israel and south africa.
Hamas is the elected body of Gaza. It also has over 75% support according to several polls post 10/7. By all means it represents the interest of Gaza’s people whether anyone wants to admit that or not.
Not entirely true. Yes, they were elected in 2007 but they have not allowed the Fatah after that. The last election may have been 2012. So considering the amount of time elapsed I wouldn’t consider them legitimately elected.
You only have to believe what you want to believe. I'm just answering the GP's question in the most direct possible way, by referencing the answer of a primary party.
