> The President of the United States and Congress barely have any influence over what goes on between Israel and Palestine.

They could, they just always, in recent decades, choose to use it in very nearly the same way, with very slight variations.

I mean, the Congress and the Preident together could, on the one hand, declare war on Palestine (either the widely-but-not-US-recognized State of Palestine, or Hamas, or both) on some pretext and radically change the context.

Or, on the other side, they could recognize and arm the State of Palestine, stop all aid and arms sales to Israel, stop vetoing every Security Council resolution that Israel doesn’t like, and sign a defense pact with the State of Palestine.

They don’t do those things because they don’t choose to, but that’s not a lack of power but a lack of sufficient interest and desire in changing the outcome.

> Zuckerberg can't influence the Israel-Palestine context one bit

He can! $100B is enough to buy god knows how much Kalashnikovs, and ammunition.

Everybody has influence of the Israel-Palestine matter because the conflict exists only thanks to the spin Israel gives to it. They do what they do- and profit from it- because the public opinion in the Western countries (USA in particular) allows them to. That's why it's so important to them to keep shaping that opinion, and that's why it's so important to change it.

The ability to shape opinions of voters and funding should be seen as a kind of influence. In the US context, perhaps the plight of Palestinian victims of property theft will influence some ethical capitalists to scale back their uncritical moral or financial support to Israeli nationalist organizations.

By way of technology alone? Careful what you wish for, you might get it!

We've seen that lies and manipulation can distort reality too much already. Platforms need to be honest to be constructive.