Major power computations I think are harder. I agree the US is falling, but I don’t think I’ve seen a serious analysis claiming that the US will become merely a power amongst a few dozen others anytime in the next few decades? We’re about to become much poorer and less diplomatically influential, but still nukes, still the huge military spending, still capitalists with hands in other economies?

And I guess I’m specifically reporting on my circle of american’s, who are both aware that we’ve burned a lot of goodwill and trust (though tbh, I’d hoped the trust was lost already after trump 1…).

The checks and balances held for Trump 1 relatively, and held for previous abuses before that (at least, sufficiently that folks would let the US say such things). I don’t think it’s obvious that they are irrepairable/irreplaceable: we could have a revolution and rebuild from scratch, as an extreme example. It is obvious that systems must change to do so; reorganizing the supreme court, changing campaign finance, etc. If they change, and how much, idk what to expect. But I think ~half the country knows it’ll take serious reforms, and it still wont put the US back where it was. Trust != systems.

At least in my circles, I think we’re aware? People are looking real hard at ways to leave. We’ve also got a higher than usual chance of reforming/refurbishing some of those broken guard rails. Fingers crossed.

The folks supporting Trump, on the other hand, already believed that these relationships were dead and bad. They’ll scapegoat somebody else for the decay; I do not see the avenue for this to be a learning experience.

Yes, let’s have this discussion.

Personally, I think screening for disease is a win. Give that service by default. Though we need this happening where somebody can check the data (grift would be very bad in this space).

I am not interested in telling you that you have done bad. I am interested in telling you that you could do better. I think this change is an improvement because:

I think there is an opportunity to make a more specific point, that requires no analogy, is shorter and more precise, still works towards your political priorities (assuming you do want Israel shamed for this kind of behavior), and (I think) has a better chance of making specific, incremental, progress in political discourse.

Yes, they are pro-Israel. They are also an american grift that’s very profitable.

I feel like you’re saying 2 is an even number, and I’m saying it’s also literally 2. Specificity has value, and I think there should be a good reason to be vague instead of specific.

I will ask again: why is my argument for changing the title stronger if stopantisemetism were anti-Israel?

Please explain why my “criticism” would be stronger if stopantisemitism were ever an anti-israeli body. I don’t understand that at all. This would show they have principles, instead of being a grift.

Plenty of other orgs have useful idiots and fans. They are ‘pro-Israel’, but I don’t think that’s the most useful descriptor or context.

I agree with the analogy. Your simple point is a fine one.

I think there is an opportunity to make a more specific point, that requires no analogy, is shorter and more precise, still works towards your political priorities (assuming you do want Israel shamed for this kind of behavior), and (I think) has a better chance of making specific, incremental, progress in political discourse. That change is to replace “Pro-Israel group” with “stopantisemitism” in the title. The analogy can be easily made in the OP body, comments, and likely springs to any readers mind. It also removes the potential for kibbitzing by apologists about how ‘oh but this is really an american org’.

That’s the simple change that I’m suggesting.

To check that I understand you: you are saying that Israel has used the label of antisemitism in a dishonest, vague, and harmful way as a tool to silence critics?

If so, we agree on this.

You are also saying that Israel deserves to be blamed/shamed for this behavior?

If so, we agree on this.

To me, this news item is about a particularly heinous (and I believe fundamentally American) grift that needs to be noticed and focused on. I think ‘Pro-Israel group’ could be replaced with the more precise and explicit “stopantisemitism” and it would improve the title. I think there are better (and endlessly many) examples of the government of israel doing this, but fewer opportunities to explicitly pile on to stopantisemitism. I am making a quibble about priorities.

I do not endorse the policy of “your group/organization is represented by all people who claim to advocate for it”. I do not want leftism, Palestine, the US, democracy, lemmy, or any other organization to be judged on this basis. So I must ask for a more direct tie, if there are any.

I would love this source: do they receive substantial funding, infrastructure and facilities, or personnel explicitly from Israel? What is their explicit tie to the government?

AFAIK (and I would really like to be wrong), this is a passion project by some absolutely terrible grifters.

I do think “StopAntisemitism” deserves being in the title; it’s a particularly loud group, not particularly representative of Israel the government (or jewish folks).

Just an absolutely abhorent organization, which deserves to be despised. No good work, just a racist organization focused on directing other racists (and actual antisemites!) away from real problems.

The linked article text is much more lukewarm than the headline.

I was surprised/disappointed tbh. But I think you should resist updating towards agreeing with the headline. Brexit is still too ongoing and close to judge carefully, but in the data it seems like it was washed out by the energy crisis and covid across many statistics, if I’m reading right?

Apologies for being an american late to the party; but how can these boundaries be principled? Why are there only 9? I notice that the 2 we haven’t crossed are crises that globalization more-or-less addressed a long while ago (CFCs?). Why is the global report supported by exactly 2 organizations (both of which are new to me; though I see that they claim large staffs).