Video footage broadcast Wednesday by Al Jazeera shows Israeli soldiers gunning down two Palestinians on the coast of northern Gaza, even as one of them waves what appears to be a piece of white fabric. The video then shows Israeli soldiers burying the bodies with a bulldozer.

Richard Falk, former United Nations special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, toldAl Jazeera that the footage provides “vivid confirmation of continuing Israeli atrocities” and spotlights the “unambiguous character of Israeli atrocities that are being carried out on a daily basis.”

“The eyes and ears of the world have been assaulted in real-time by this form of genocidal behavior,” said Falk. “It is a shocking reality that there has been no adverse reaction from the liberal democracies in the West. It is a shameful moment.”

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    It seems your definition of neutrality requires action and enforcement, while my definition requires inaction. Is there another distinction? Otherwise this is pointless semantics.

    Yes, military alliances need to provide benefit for both parties. We have sufficient influence in the Middle East, though, with bases throughout Iraq and Syria, and other longstanding allies in the region like the Saudis and Kuwaitis. I know you believe this vassal state nonsense, but you don’t have much evidence or strong reasoning to stand on here. Also note, that as a nuclear power, Israel would continue to exist after US withdrawal.

    As an aside, do you concede that we no longer need the oil from the region? That’s a key point. Our main hydrocarbon trading partner is Canada, now.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      It seems your definition of neutrality requires action and enforcement, while my definition requires inaction. Is there another distinction? Otherwise this is pointless semantics.

      It’s not a semantic disagreement, it’s a metaphysical one. A fundamental principle of philosophy is that no system is truly neutral, ALL systems advantage certain outcomes. Claiming a system as neutral is as ideological as claiming something as ‘natural’. But rather than doubling down on my own perspective, I’ll let William James put the debate to rest:

      “Some years ago, being with a camping party in the mountains, I returned from a solitary ramble to find everyone engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel–a live squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side of a tree-trunk; while over against the tree’s opposite side a human being was imagined to stand. This human witness tries to get sight of the squirrel by moving rapidly round the tree, but no matter how fast he goes, the squirrel moves as fast in the opposite direction, and always keeps the tree between himself and the man, so that never a glimpse of him is caught. The resultant metaphysical problem now is this: DOES THE MAN GO ROUND THE SQUIRREL OR NOT? He goes round the tree, sure enough, and the squirrel is on the tree; but does he go round the squirrel? In the unlimited leisure of the wilderness, discussion had been worn threadbare. Everyone had taken sides, and was obstinate; and the numbers on both sides were even. Each side, when I appeared, therefore appealed to me to make it a majority. Mindful of the scholastic adage that whenever you meet a contradiction you must make a distinction, I immediately sought and found one, as follows: “Which party is right,” I said, "depends on what you PRACTICALLY MEAN by ‘going round’ the squirrel. If you mean passing from the north of him to the east, then to the south, then to the west, and then to the north of him again, obviously the man does go round him, for he occupies these successive positions. But if on the contrary you mean being first in front of him, then on the right of him, then behind him, then on his left, and finally in front again, it is quite as obvious that the man fails to go round him, for by the compensating movements the squirrel makes, he keeps his belly turned towards the man all the time, and his back turned away. Make the distinction, and there is no occasion for any farther dispute. You are both right and both wrong according as you conceive the verb ‘to go round’ in one practical fashion or the other.”

      If you agree that liberalism advantages external power structures and enables the consolidation thereof then there remains no disagreement between us.

      As an aside, do you concede that we no longer need the oil from the region? That’s a key point. Our main hydrocarbon trading partner is Canada, now.

      A claim I never made. The geopolitical significance of the middle east is its large oil deposits, as well as its geographical proximity to major trade routes. Whether we source our own oil from there is immaterial to the point I was making.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think you’ve illuminated a fundamental weakness of metaphysical debate. But regardless, as I recall we don’t require the word neutral, we’ve come up with at least four that I’m personally fine with. Use whichever you like.

        Yes, I agreed with that several comments ago. Liberalism distributes power among many institutions, from religious, to capital, to community, to state, etc. It allows these to perform actions that it will not perform. You could certainly call that advantage.

        In what way is it immaterial whether we source our oil from there or not? Seems to be the very crux of the matter to me.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          In what way is it immaterial whether we source our oil from there or not? Seems to be the very crux of the matter to me.

          because our interest in the region isn’t for oil for ourselves, it’s influence over all the nations in the region, and that entire region revolves around the power that oil grants those countries.

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Uh huh. I think you’re just drifting into conspiracy theory land now. Regardless, our large amount of aid to Egypt give us significant influence over the Suez, and our multitude of other alliances and bases gives plenty of power for that, if it actually was the goal. We could lose any three and still have massive power projection through the region.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Lol a third of the world’s oil is produced in the middle east, and most of it is moved across boarders through pipelines and by sea.

              I don’t think it’s conspiratorial to say that is extremely valuable, even if it’s only marginally less-so after the shale revolution. Hell, the entire current phase of conflict in the red sea was because Yemeni Houthies, (a relatively tiny military power) were targeting trade routes.

              Whatever you want to believe I guess, I’m pretty bored with whatever this is.

              • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Yes it’s absolutely valuable. Just not to us. The trade routes you’ve mentioned are far more so, since that impacts the global economy. We’d be a poor global military superpower if we had a plethora of bases everywhere except one of the most concentrated shipping regions on the whole planet.

                Just so long as you recognize that perhaps Israel has no special military significance anymore, and hasn’t for over a decade now. It’s more religious than geopolitical at this point. Very different from how things were 50 years ago.

                • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Just so long as you recognize that perhaps Israel has no special military significance anymore, and hasn’t for over a decade now. It’s more religious than geopolitical at this point. Very different from how things were 50 years ago.

                  fucking LMAO. They’re a western-aligned nuclear superpower with the 4th strongest military in the region, behind 2 other (far, FAR bigger) western-aligned countries. That, and they occupy a large stretch of the Mediterranean sea in front of a nexus of oil pipelines and trade ports.

                  You do you though.

                  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    But none of that is unique. We have nukes that can touch every corner of the globe. We have a much larger military than them. We have Egypt and Turkey on either side of them.

                    I’m sorry for challenging your pre-existing perceptions, but history kept moving.