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.”
how dare you be so critical of Biden
…Biden doesn’t want to support the genocide of Palestinians, he is just forced to given the fact that if he looks weak to independent voters from not unconditionally backing Israel’s genocide of Palestinians than he is going to lose the election. Do you honestly think he would be supporting a genocide if it wasn’t a smart political strategy?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx
…
…
Ok fine so maybe even independents think what Israel is doing is awful in Gaza, but can’t you people be patient and wait until the dust settles after the election, and after all the Palestinians are dead and removed from their land? We can have a discussion about whether the Palestinian genocide was right or wrong then! Stop sabotaging Biden in the meantime, he is trying real hard to swoon those independent voters and they clearly are rabid supporters of the IDF committing genocide which is definitely a fact I didn’t contradict a second ago!
/s <------
4 hours and not a single right-center douchebag has come out of the woods. Maybe they’re catching on that their rhetoric isn’t working and Biden is going to flat out lose the country because of his genocidal friends.
Is this sarcasm? I’m neurodivergent and can’t tell
Yes it was. So many people come out of the wood work to say we can’t be at all critical about how Biden has handled this
deleted by creator
Video is in the article.
What seems to be a tank drives up at 0:55 and shoots at 1:08.
The Bulldozer crushes them into a pile of rubble at 1:27
And I wouldn’t be shocked at all to find out that that corpse laden rubbles are dumped into the sea to build the US’ stupid fucking dock.
I would like an explanation to the downvotes. We know that the US has been using rubbles of houses and structures to build their fucking dock.
Why is it a stupid fucking dock?
Because it’s a technical solution for a problem that could be solved by a fucking phone call. The lack of food in Gaza is solely due to Israel blocking trucks at the border crossings. All Biden needs to do is call Netanyahu, tell him to let all the trucks in or he gets no more weapons, and the people in Gaza will stop starving within days. It’s not an infrastructure problem, it never was, and there’s no reason to spend months building a dock.
Maybe because stupid fucking Israel destroyed the already existing Gaza port and won’t let trucks in with aid? So it’s a stupid fucking waste because of stupid fucking Israel?
EU, UAE, UK all vowed to use the stupid fucking dock, so the rest of the world seems to think it’s a good solution to a VERY time sensitive problem.
***This post is to simply test the waters of whether Mr. Wildbus is a)anti-Biden no matter what, b)Pro-Israel no matter what, c)Elon Musk
Maybe it’s gonna take, what? Months to complete? Why can’t they just drive trucks with aid in ? Seems like they have no issues driving trucks in with building materials … It’s a diversion, and it fucking stupid. It’s taking people for idiots and it’s incredibly insulting to the people who are suffering.
There are so many issues with that plan, it’s insane people would defend it.
Maybe the EU and the UK let’s be real also all have been stalling on the issue at hand aren’t exactly the moral gauge we should be looking at.
And yeah, fuck Biden, fuck him for lying that he saw evidence of dead babies, fuck him for supporting Israel no matter what for decades now. Fuck that geriatric ass hat. And if you think I like Elon, let alone Israel, you’re also most as dumb as the dock itself.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-bidens-floating-pier-is-unlikely-to-meet-gazas-needs
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/07/gaza-floating-port-aid-palestinians-impact
Gaza never had a large port. Any port being destroyed has nothing to do with one needing to be constructed to directly offload aid from ships into Gaza. The only large port nearby is in Egypt, or further in Israel. Those end up with the same issue that were in right now of aid being prevented from entering by land, which yeah it sucks but doing something is better than just sitting around saying it sucks.
And the reason Gaza never had a port was because Israel has a naval blockade on the strip. They have always been kept dependent on what could be imported from Israel.
Very true, and not an argument against not building the port (not to say that’s what you meant) . If anything it’s an argument in favor of it.
They can save on bullets, by lining them up and shooting them through the head, before they fall in their graves.
I’ve read about that from somewhere in history; can’t exactly remember wer war schuldig, I mean, who was guilty of it…
I wonder how long until they start building gas chambers for Palestinians
“It is a shocking reality that there has been no adverse reaction from the liberal democracies in the West.
Not that shocking, really. Liberalism would be self-determination everywhere, not the west protecting the world and instituting its own values. If someone somewhere else wants to operate under a different set of values where human life is not considered important, a liberal does not go over there and fix them.
Liberalism is not inherently “good”, it’s inherently hands-off. Like the Swiss. This is partly why its become somewhat out-dated as an ideology post-WW2. Expecting someone who believes in liberty to control the fates of lands and peoples not their own is misunderstanding it though. That’s not liberty, it’s the spreading exertion of power and influence–the opposite of liberty.
Liberty doesn’t defend anything except itself. This is the root of US isolationism tendencies, and why hating the UN is so common here.
But then you can’t call the US a liberal democracy in any way as they aren’t hands-off at all. Time and time again they meddle in other countries’ business to exert influence and power and to advance their interests.
Israel itself was created by the West as Palestine was a British colony before and the US has since given more support to Israel than they would usually grant an ally. The continuous protection (political and militaristic) makes Israel almost a vassal state of the US. This is the real reason why “liberal democracies” have not reacted much (yet, hopefully).
Before we low-key split from Pakistan, they had a similar symbiotic/parasitic relation as the US does with Israel. Seen as a good ally/possible partner diplomatically and with military utility for bases and CENTCOM power projection. And though Pakistan was never really ‘on side’ for a couple of reasons, they kept themselves under the radar and out of our ire - until we found Taliban militants regularly getting refuge and medical care over the Afghan-Pak border, and capped off with discovering Bin Laden in Pakistan.
Israel is hardly a ‘vassal’ or even protectorate. The US has significant leverage, but Israel has remained cordial with Russia and China even if that means snubbing the US - Israel refused to export anti-ship and cruise missiles to Ukraine, in deference to Chinese and Russian interests. Israel has options now to split from the US (painful as it may be) unlike in the 60/70s when the Soviets were funneling weapons to Egypt and Syria, and Israel required US support.
All that to say, Israel can (and may yet) tell the US to kick rocks again, and I don’t think the west is ready for the reality of what enforcing a ceasefire/no-fly zone would mean.
This “vassal state” nonsense is a common meme, but that’s about it. If it really was one, they’d listen to us.
And agreed, which is why I said that post-WW2, liberalism has been growing out-dated. It doesn’t make much sense in a world of global communications, trade and warfare, so some evolution was, and continues to be, required. Otherwise it risks exchanging military imperialism for economic imperialism, where instead of conquering other lands you simply profit off of their people and resources.
Otherwise it risks exchanging military imperialism for economic imperialism
There is nothing about Liberalism that excludes this practice as anything but an inevitability.
Inevitability? Not so sure about that, though the steps necessary to combat it could be construed as a departure from liberalism. Specific laws to prevent it, basically.
If you agree that liberalism does nothing to prevent the accumulation of power, how does liberalism not inevitably lead to economic imperialism? Honest question.
It really just seems like liberalism is being used here as a way to white-wash what is by most measures an extremely broken system.
With lawmaking. Our problem is that companies have acquired an outsized degree of power, including over the election system itself. The solution would be to break them, as we have done in the past. Certain behaviors need to be prohibited for the good of the country.
No system is immune to descent into tyranny of some form or another. Its enforcement mechanisms to prevent that need to be used appropriately though.
Our problem is that companies have acquired an outsized degree of power, including over the election system itself.
I’m happy that you see this, but I wish you could see how that accumulation happens. A system that doesn’t have a way of addressing or acknowledging power differentials begotten by the accumulation of capital is bound to lead to that inevitability. And that doesn’t even address the GEOPOLITICAL problems we started with. How the fuck does liberalism address the gigantic power differential of the United States against literally every other country on the planet?
Liberalism assumes that individuals entering into agreement are on equal footing. It ignores the coercive conditions of capital (between individuals and between nation states) and preaches ‘self-determination’.
This “vassal state” nonsense is a common meme, but that’s about it. If it really was one, they’d listen to us.
The problem with that is in perception, ie: the US sees Israel as a vassal state but Israel sees themselves in an “equal” partnership. Therefore why would they feel they had to obey America?
I don’t think the US sees them as a vassal state. Otherwise they probably would’ve been doing quite a bit of fighting for us in Afghanistan and Vietnam.
What is so hard to understand about the relationship known as “alliance”, and how it means you are “allies”? Seems much more accurate than all this vassal state propaganda.
You think the US supports Israel despite their engagement in genocide simply on principle? You think there’s no material benefit to the US?
Liberalism is not inherently “good”, it’s inherently hands-off
It is absolutely not ‘hands-off’, it just denies the existence of externalized power structures inherent in capital and neo-colonialism and uses them to exert influence instead of (or in addition to, rather) the old imperialist tools of direct violence. It hides behind the rhetoric of self-determination while exerting its corrupting influence through capital and soft-power.
Liberalism is a delusion of neutrality and a scourge to liberty everywhere.
No, that’s just communist ideology trying to demonize everything that isn’t itself.
Actual liberty does not inherently guarantee freedom from all oppression, as that would be an institution from a higher authority. It gives a certain liberty to oppress, which is why it so often exists hand-in-hand with capitalism. To do otherwise would require some form of authority to prevent oppression, which contradicts the core idea.
This is another facet of the post-WW2 reasons it has become somewhat out-dated. Also, note, I’m talking about the core of the ideology, not its history of implementation by flawed men. Similar to how I would not try to criticize Marxist ideology by looking at everyone who has claimed to be a communist.
No, that’s just communist ideology trying to demonize everything that isn’t itself.
It’s not an ideological statement to observe that liberalism abdicates the power of state governance to economic and capitalistic structures, nor is it ideological to observe that economic structures can -and do- wield just as much coercive power over individuals, states, and institutions as any state structure can.
However, asserting that “liberalism is inherently hands-off” is an ideological statement, because it pretends as if market and capital systems and structures are somehow outside of its responsibility even though those structures are central to its functioning as conceived by Locke and Hobbes.
To pretend as if the US’s economic power is some kind of aberration of ‘true liberalism’ is just absurd, though not surprising because I doubt Hobbes or Locke could have imagined the scale of influence and domination a liberal democracy like the United States now enjoys.
Partial abdication, I’ll grant that. What is ideological is to assume that something else exhibiting coercive power is some inherent negative. Liberalism specifically does not want a full monopoly on coercive power to be in the hands of any single system or institution. Instead it spreads it out.
That you see that as some negative or flaw is simply representative of your own position. Many institutions wielding coercive power is not inherently dangerous, just perhaps inefficient.
Liberalism specifically does not want a full monopoly on coercive power to be in the hands of any single system or institution.
But it does nothing to prevent it from accumulating, and does even less to prevent a state from accumulating too much power. A sovereign state that is dependent on the economic support of another that is 50+ times its size is no more free from tyranny than one living under the imperialist occupation of a monarch.
That you see that as some negative or flaw is simply representative of your own position
I don’t see anything negative about spreading power into as many hands as possible, but I’m not delusional enough to believe liberalism can achieve that if it ignores the inherent power in capital.
Liberalism was foundational to transitioning away from monarchical power, but was simply ill-equipped (possibly intentionally so) to anticipate the inevitable failures caused by ignoring/denying the existence of power exercised through capital and the accumulation thereof.
I can agree with that.
Good read, thanks guys.
Did you really say exhibiting coercive power isn’t inherently negative? I’d say in both imperialism and Neocolonialism it certainly is as it’s used to exploit the global south population and resources at their expense.
No, I said: What is ideological is to assume that something else exhibiting coercive power is some inherent negative.
It can certainly be considered negative. Considering it so is ideological, however.
I don’t see how exhibiting coercive power can be considered positive or neutral, especially in the context of imperialism or neocolonialism
The classic hands off approach of sending israel weapons and money to commit Genocide with.
Sometimes, yes. Genocide prevention is not the job of military alliances, unfortunately. If it was, there’d be far less organized killing in the world.
That’s so smart and realpolitik wow.
The contracts state that if a party commits war crimes America isn’t allowed to deliver them weapons so you’re also dead wrong.
Yes, in more recent years that was made law, and we should start to abide by it.
But it’s not “smart” and “realpolitik” to simply acknowledge what a military alliance is. That’s just agreement of basic definitions. Depending on who we have in office, our tolerance for war crimes and following laws changes dramatically.
“The law is not relevant if it’s not convenient”
So nothing new. Israel still going on about with its genocide.
Removed by mod
People understand it’s a joke. They also understand it’s an incredibly low quality one.
Sad troll is sad.
58 minutes to banned. I think that’s a Lemmy record.
I guess you could say… he didn’t last very long
(his deleted comment was:
spoiler
*“not my proudest fap”
With a “joke” like that, the ban was 100% deserved
They probably should’ve released the hostages sooner.
“Your authoritarian rulers kidnapped some of our people so now we get to kill innocent people with impunity” is a super shitty take
Can you point out the hostages these two men had in the video?
Oh, look, another one parroting of the Nazi propaganda that an entire people are responsible for and hence can be killed as reprisal for the acts of a few amongst them.
Whilst conflating Palestinians with Hamas is merelly pure racist “logic”, using that to justify mass murder of Palestinians is Nazi-level cruel violent racism.
You mean the ones they’ve been caught shooting? Maybe the hostages are just a shitty excuse so morons like you say dumb shit like that.
Death to Israel and their supporters
