I don’t have a duty to google to find sources that you won’t provide, nor guess at what your point is. I don’t actually have access to the thoughts in your head beyond what you have written.

Apparently not even to click a link. Did you click it? Or did you just get offended at the "Let me google that for you" method? This is literally the top link: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/13/world/reagan-demands-end-to-attacks-in-a-blunt-telephone-call-to-begin.html

I’ll summarize this point by saying you’re arguing in essence that if Biden demanded an end to the war, it would end because Israel would run out of weapons. This leaves out several other possibilities, the most notable of which is that Democrats are voted out by (usually democratic-voting) jews and Trump takes office and gives Israel whatever they want.

https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling

This is wrong.

To think otherwise is really a rather far left view that has never been popular is US politics.

Far left.... Like Reagan? Again, I provided you the link, did you even click it? This isn't rational.

Another possibility is Israel allying with Russia or China to get the weapons they need. Either way, the war continues. I happen to think Biden should’ve cut them off anyway, but the point I’m arguing is that every other president would’ve done no more than Biden did.

LOL. How to say you know nothing about geopolitics without saying you know nothing about geopolitics.

Countries are not fungible. Other countries have different views and different alliances than our country does.

Again, countries are not fungible.

Furthermore, you are ignoring how much fucking money we give them.

If. The voters used their power to put Trump in office after he was quite clear about wanting Netanyahu to do whatever he wants in Gaza and even the West Bank. I think that says a lot about Biden’s abilities.

Not if. I provided you link, you just took offense at the format and didn't follow through.

I completely reject this as impractical and harmful to discussions everywhere. If something is not common knowledge and can be doubted, you need to provide a source. Think about it. The alternative is that I am left to either 1) Trust some random person on the internet or 2) do the work myself to find out, which in your case also involves trying to figure out what you’re even trying to say first, or 3) just assert the opposite without providing a source is response. Most people choose 1) if it’s someone they already agree with, and 3) if it’s someone they disagree with. This is why we have so many culty filter bubbles. Cite your sources. Not only for me, but also for you so you can verify that your memory is correct, and end up making a better point as a result.

It's funny how this doesn't apply to your (wrong) assertions that justify your (wrong) viewpoint.

Go justify your favorite presidents genocide somewhere else.

You do have a responsibility to have some understanding of the topic you're commenting on. It's not other peoples responsibility to teach you. Especially when you refuse to actually follow links or read things.