By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Shopping Trends team, operating independently of CTV News journalists, analyzes consumer behavior to identify trending products and purchasing patterns. Their work involves curating product recommendations, often through affiliate links that may generate commissions for the team. This independent operation allows them to offer insights into popular items and provide potential shopping opportunities for readers. The goal is to deliver valuable information about current shopping trends, allowing consumers to make informed purchasing decisions.
Read the original article here
Dozens at the UN General Assembly walk out as Israeli leader Netanyahu begins his much-watched speech, a scene that quickly ignited a firestorm of reactions. It’s hard not to notice the contrast between the discussions in various online spaces. It’s the UNGA, after all. Think of it as a high-stakes, international student government, where symbolic gestures often speak louder than words.
Walkouts, in the grand scheme of things, are mostly symbolic. The reality is that the relevant players, the ones who make the actual decisions, will inevitably still pay attention to what’s being said, even if they don’t agree with it. It’s all part of the diplomatic dance. The outrage, however, is palpable. You see comments expressing everything from frustration to outright contempt for Netanyahu, with the sentiment that he shouldn’t even be given a platform. Some suggest the UN is primarily a forum for criticizing Israel, and that the walkout was a convenient way to express disapproval, particularly for those under pressure from their own domestic audiences.
It’s interesting how the UN, designed for dialogue, can sometimes seem to be a stage for performative politics. If the goal was merely to make a statement, one could argue that staying home and posting on social media might have been just as effective, and less expensive. The cost of sending these delegates, and the optics of the situation, raises questions of value for many. The walkout can be viewed as a form of dialogue itself. It’s how these countries signal their disapproval of Israel’s actions. It does not prevent him from speaking, or from his words later being read.
The criticism leveled against Netanyahu isn’t just about the speech itself. There is the context of his long history, the accusations, and the political climate. It seems, for some, that listening to his words is seen as lending legitimacy to someone they believe is a war criminal. It’s like there’s a sense of, “We already know what’s going on,” and any further discussion feels like a waste of time. The idea that there’s nothing new to be heard from him, and that it’s all a repetitive cycle of misinformation and denial, is prevalent.
The question of what makes a nation “deserve” statehood is a complex one that frequently arises in the context of this conflict. The walkout could also be seen as a reaction to the long-standing non-recognition of a Palestinian state. The existence of violence for nearly eighty years raises the question of whether a separate Palestinian nation should form. The language of “carrots and sticks” seems out of touch when considering the deeply entrenched issues in the region.
The Palestinian delegation’s apparent effort to bring as many staffers as possible to participate in the walkout is viewed as theatrical, especially when considering the weight of the subject matter. Some see it as a petty gesture akin to student government, while others, with stronger opinions, view it as the actions of a war criminal, making the walkout justified. There is a feeling that dialogue is fruitless, considering that Israel has no intention of allowing a Palestinian state to be created.
It’s important to understand the UN’s role. The UN serves as a place to keep tensions from escalating. It’s about keeping communication lines open between powerful nations and providing an outlet for countries to express their political pressures. The walkout then, can be a manifestation of that pressure. It’s a safer alternative to more aggressive actions. It is a way to express outrage without escalating the conflict.
Some see the UN as a platform for international animosity. The fact that the UN created Israel is another point raised. It is seen that the UN is biased against Israel. They feel that Israel wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for the UN, and the historical context of European migration is mentioned. Others point out that the issue is about the slaughter of civilians, in reference to recent events.
The impact of the walkout is debatable. The audience that remains in the room is often sympathetic to Israel. Netanyahu was able to deliver his speech, with applause and cheers at times. The gesture did not faze him. Those who walked out are using this as a diplomatic maneuver. This is not the first instance of this. The UN delegate refused to attend when countries were recognizing Palestine.