They were saying that this “slippery slope” of helping people get debt relief isn’t the big scary threat they statement seems to imply.
I.e., “if we allow debt relief for pilots, what will stop them from allowing it for nurses, teachers, and social workers???” And the person is saying “I don’t see that as a problem.”
What do you mean? There’s a whole generation of Yemeni children afraid of Sunny days because those are the days that people die. I’m a place that gets 300+ days of sunshine a year.
I would fully disagree. We targeted civilians, not in war zones at functions like weddings, funerals and other explicitly civilian gatherings. We (the US) had the intent to kill civilians, and our tolerances for civilian casualties were an order of magnitude larger than what the IDF is using.
If anything it’s not comparable because what we did was worse.
Thank you for knowing history and at least trying to educate others from it. People here are so willing to bend definitions and ignore events that were far worse just so it can fit their narrative.
All the starving people in Yemen would disagree with the not genocide comment. Like in Palestine, a religious nationalist is committing atrocities with full US support.
If you still believe the “Hamas” bullshit, you literally don’t have a brain
The crap Israel spins about Hamas is all a pile of horse shit so they can carry out their Manifest Destiny conquer of the middle east and purge the “holy land” and cleanse it from the “lesser people” and establish a rule of “god’s chosen”, that’s literally what Zionists have believed for over ~70 years
Hamas is literally better than most of the governments and “freedom fighters” the united states finds itself in bed with
I want an objective, non-obsessive-downvoter, explanation as to how anyone in the world knows what really happened? I understand this question feels smarmy, but there so much emotion in this. But how do we know these guys weren’t Hamas?
Please just be chill, I’m not picking a fight or anything like that.
The problem is that according to due process, you need to prove somebody is guilty of something before they are jailed. These people weren’t jailed, they were basically executed from a distance. The burden of proof is on the Israeli military to prove that they WERE Hamas, not on people horrified by the footage to prove the negative. And so far (and historically) the IDF seems to not care to do so, and in lots of cases have given “proof” as justification for one action or another that later turned out to be bullshit.
Not to mention the numerous cases of the IDF killing people in “Press” vests and helmets, or people literally actively waving a white flag. In my opinion, they don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt given their record.
Staying on the topic at hand, and only that, this is war. Killing an enemy on the field has no system of public review. Everything is internal. Neither IDF or Hammas has to provide proof of anything to anybody for any reason except when propagandantistic PR is at play (like you mentioned). At least not now. There will surely be tribunals after this war is “settled.” The only direction proof goes is up the chain of command. I won’t pretend to understand the complexity of target selection and acquisition (especially foreign nations and certainly not terrorists), but I know that that’s how it works. There is no burden of proof, whatsoever.
Those are the cold facts.
Opinion, etc: I hope you don’t read this as some kind of defence or exoneration of any malicious, evil, callous, or accidental killing commited of innocents. I unequivocally do not want or excuse killing civilians. Anyone who does is hideously evil. However, I think a reality check is necessary.
The “burden of proof” is a security blanket most of the world enjoys and vaguely understands. When they see some horrible violence of war, fed to them without context by compromised sources, it’s easy to make assumptions and demand justice. And many of those times, you should, just ideally without the assumptions and propaganda. This isn’t one of this times. I know that the IDF is commiting war crimes, but this video is just war.
Killing obvious civilians is a warcrime. While there are circumstances where this is ambiguous, this example isn’t - Israel needs to overcome the very reasonable conclusion that these were civilians and prove that they were enemy combatants.
Understanding that 60-70% of the Palestinians Israel have killed are children, this will be a tall order.
The video shows 4 people in civilian clothes casually wandering along chatting while unarmed.
Putting aside the thousands upon thousands literal children Israel has slaughtered in the past few months while spewing genocidal rhetoric (because Hamas?), what evidence do you have that this isn’t a warcrime and that they’re combatants? The video contains absolutely nothing suggesting anything of the sort, and no evidence has been presented.
When people say they want to commit a genocide, then kill tens of thousands of civilians, I tend to believe them - why are you so incredulous?
Now you’re just repeating the same words over and over again with no correlation. Holy shit. Did I get baited into a “discussion” with ChatGPT 1.0? There’s no other explanation
Oh my god this is hilarious. I’ve sent 20 messages explaining that theres no evidence one way or the other, and you still parrot the same shit over and over again. Come on, rub your both braincells together, Karen, figure it out.
Your whole argument is that I’m a genocide denier, and I’ve stated many times saying theres an active genocide in Gaza, committed by Israeli forces. You literally have no argument.
Bad guys don’t look the way you imagine. Real life is not a Holywood stage (I know some Americans struggle with this fact)
Let’s try this one more time, all together now: “An out of context clip on twitter, containing unidentified people in an unidentified area, during an unidentified time, is not evidence”.
Based on the level of responses you gave me so far, I assume you’re confused by that as well.
WE, the people watching, cannot know, whether the targets were “The bad guys” (you know, pew pew pew), or the good guys. Being unarmed could be an indication, BUT IT’S NOT EVIDENCE. Life is not a movie, nor a Battlefield game.
There we go. The fact that there’s evidence of the murder of a group of apparent civilians and no evidence they were combatants or expectation of it is the problem. You don’t get to go killing whoever you please, shrug your shoulders and say “eh - I dunno - Hamas I guess - who cares”. This applies doubly in the context of the ongoing genocide - Israel have made it crystal clear they can’t be trusted.
To look at a genocidal regime killing a bunch of people that gave no indication they’re combatants, shrugging your shoulders and saying there’s no evidence they’re not guilty doesn’t cut it. It excuses the commission of the genocide (which is just thousands of instances of this kind of thing with an imposed famine and displacement), and represents a total disregard for the rule of law.
The one’s doing the killing have to collect evidence. Not fucking random Karens on the internet who can only watch a twitter video and try to deduce information using their fucking salt lamp.
Do you imagine the bad guys to be “Hey Karen look at us! We have skulls on our shirts, and I’m wearing an eyepatch! Kill us, we’re the bad guys It is important that twitter people recognise us!”.
You have to be trolling. You just have to be. I refuse to believe people you’re a real person writing all that unironically
I expect Israel to have a better justification for killing a group of people than “they looked Palestinian.” - that’s genocidal. This is a high-profile example largely because it appears so unambiguous. Israel are going to need to present the evidence that this was justified, or it gets thrown on the pile of killings amounting to that genocide.
We have video footage of a bunch of civilians being targeted in a drone strike - until they’re shown to be enemy combatants (not happening) this is evidence of a warcrime. Your logic could be used to justify nuking Tel Aviv - we can’t know the entire population aren’t enemy combatants, and it’s not for us to prove or ask for proof, so stop worrying about it, Karen.
If you believe the IDF need to prove the killing was justified, why are you defending them not doing so, and if you believe this is a genocide, why do you deny that the killings that make up that genocide are unjustified (remembering that they literally haven’t been justified)?
I’m pretty happy to change my tune on this instance if credible evidence is presented, but I’m also comfortable saying that I know that won’t happen at this point.
I don’t think calling me a Karen for opposing warcrimes and genocide is having the desired effect, but you do you, champ.
I expect Israel to have a better justification for killing a group of people than “they looked Palestinian.”
Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. It’s not clear from the video.
We have video footage of a bunch of civilians being targeted in a drone strike
We don’t. No evidence they are civilians. No evidence they are combatants. If you have proof other than “they look civilian”, give us proof.
this is evidence of a warcrime.
It is not. No proof this is Gaza. No proof it’s an IDF drone strike. No proof that it happened last week, last month, last year or last decade. If you have proof “IDK it looks like it”, give us proof. And not just one of these things, but ALL.
If you believe the IDF need to prove the killing was justified, why are you defending them not doing so,
Nobody said IDF don’t have proof. They just don’t have to share it with the public, no matter how hard you want it. I’m not defending them, I’m trying to show you that your logic is flawed, and you can easily be swayed by misinformation and propaganda.
and if you believe this is a genocide, why do you deny that the killings that make up that genocide are unjustified (remembering that they literally haven’t been justified)?
What I believe is my deduction from actual, confirmed, reputable sources. Not a random twitter video. My opinion that is a genocide is just that - opinion. And unlike you, I don’t claim I have proof. Because none of us have.
I don’t think calling me a Karen for opposing warcrimes and genocide is having the desired effect, but you do you, champ.
You’re not opposing genocide. You’re literrally sitting in your warm home, half a world away, reacting to random videos on the internet with an angry emoji for internet clout. “Genocide bad” is as useful as “Bad things are bad”.
You said I have bad reading comprehension and you deduced that I called you Karen because you “oppose warcrimes”? Holy shit, either read again, or read more.
Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. It’s not clear from the video.
We’d need the IDF to justify the killings. They haven’t won’t and can’t.
Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. It’s not clear from the video.
You think you can go shoot up a school, then say it was in self-defence without evidence and get away with it? How’s the principle different here?
We don’t. No evidence they are civilians. No evidence they are combatants. If you have proof other than “they look civilian”, give us proof.
The burden isn’t on those killed to prove their innocence - the killers need to do that. Rule of law - really simple stuff you seem incapable of grasping but get all pissy when I point that out.
It is not. No proof this is Gaza. No proof it’s an IDF drone strike. No proof that it happened last week, last month, last year or last decade. If you have proof “IDK it looks like it”, give us proof. And not just one of these things, but ALL.
…except the IDF admitting it was them. I know they have zero credibility, but when they admit to this kind of thing, I think it’s reasonable to believe them.
Nobody said IDF don’t have proof. They just don’t have to share it with the public, no matter how hard you want it. I’m not defending them, I’m trying to show you that your logic is flawed, and you can easily be swayed by misinformation and propaganda.
Absent anything at all suggesting they were combatants in the context of a genocide Israel is committing? I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
What I believe is my deduction from actual, confirmed, reputable sources. Not a random twitter video. My opinion that is a genocide is just that - opinion. And unlike you, I don’t claim I have proof. Because none of us have.
Again, the IDF admitted to the killings. You saw video of a bunch of people being killed for no discernible reason, and you’re defending that.
And the rest? You can stop reaching - it’s not doing you any favours.
We’d need the IDF to justify the killings. They haven’t won’t and can’t.
You haven’t received a detailed breakdown of war and casualties via mail? Weird…
You think you can go shoot up a school, then say it was in self-defence without evidence and get away with it? How’s the principle different here?
What the fuck are you on about…
The burden isn’t on those killed to prove their innocence - the killers need to do that. Rule of law - really simple stuff you seem incapable of grasping but get all pissy when I point that out.
You are literally insane. Nobody has to prove anything to you, you absolutely delusional person. You are a fucking civilian half a world away. I don’t know how are you not getting this.
Absent anything at all suggesting they were combatants in the context of a genocide Israel is committing? I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Karen “just knowing things” again
Again, the IDF admitted to the killings. You saw video of a bunch of people being killed for no discernible reason, and you’re defending that.
Just because don’t know the reason, doesn’t mean that IDF didn’t have one, and no, they don’t have to mail you the reason while the there’s an ongoing war.
Okay, now I’m really done. This went from a fun ‘feed the troll’ deal, to talking to a mentally problematic person who thinks the world revolves around them and they should get detailed war reports delivered to them, to justify every war casualty.
You don’t understand how war works
You still don’t know what evidence is
You still think the bad guys should look like the bad guys from Holywood movies, otherwise they’re good guys
You still think you can watch a video and know things from “intuition”.
All four show me that this is a completely meaningless conversation and a general waste of my time.
Now, tell me how I’m a genocide denier, even though I agreed that there’s genocide in Gaza, and tell me how I’m defending IDF, even though I think IDF and Israeli government are terrorists. That’ll make a good point! Lmao
Continue living in your cocoon of safety and self-righteousness sucking up all the propaganda and every conspiracy theory, thinking that your reactions on facebook/twitter videos help the people of Gaza.
Whe could continue this circle of me trying to explain things to a rock, but I’d rather use my time elsewhere.
You haven’t received a detailed breakdown of war and casualties via mail? Weird…
Believe it or not, proof doesn’t need to be mailed to me, but it does need to be provided. It hasn’t been. Who do you think it needs to be provided to, and when should that happen? It hasn’t and won’t go to the ICJ. Similarly, the world hasn’t recieved one via the same public channels Israel used to confirm they killed these civilians. I guess there’s still Palestinian children that still draw breath, so I’m sure they’re prioritising addressing that.
What the fuck are you on about…
Israel would be the school shooter claiming self-defence in this analogy. You don’t get to kill a bunch of people, make excuses, and not prove them. Neither does Israel.
You are literally insane. Nobody has to prove anything to you, you absolutely delusional person. You are a fucking civilian half a world away. I don’t know how are you not getting this.
Again, supplying the evidence for the high-profile killing of multiple civilians via the same channels they used to confirm it was them would be sensible. The irony of someone busy arguing against the rule of law calling me insane isn’t lost on me.
Karen “just knowing things” again
Yeah, but mostly just asking for evidence to justify the killing of multiple civilians rather than defending those killings.
Just because don’t know the reason, doesn’t mean that IDF didn’t have one,
Sure they shot up that school and admitted to it, but they probably had a good reason for it. Uh huh - I’m insane.
and no, they don’t have to mail you the reason while the there’s an ongoing war.
You understand that this makes you look dumber than most of the things you’re saying right? Also, I know genocide is a big word and war isn’t, but this isn’t a war.
they should get detailed war reports delivered to them, to justify every war casualty
You’re doing the stupid again.
You don’t understand how war works
Not a war - a genocide.
You still don’t know what evidence is
If you’re to be believed it can’t exist, and isn’t needed in any case - Israel are probably fine, and can be trusted, right?
You still think the bad guys should look like the bad guys from Holywood movies, otherwise they’re good guys
I think you need a reason to kill a bunch of people - there isn’t one here.
You still think you can watch a video and know things from “intuition”.
We know a regime that’s currently committing a genocide and a laundry list of warcrimes killed 4 people with no apparent reason to do so. On the one hand, I’m saying we’d need to see evidence justifying these killings to know they’re not a warcrime. On the other, you’re saying nothing is evidence, and because Israel doesn’t need to provide the fictional evidence to me personally, it’s all fine.
All four show me that this is a completely meaningless conversation and a general waste of my time.
Noone can waste your time but you.
Now, tell me how I’m a genocide denier, even though I agreed that there’s genocide in Gaza,
You’re defending the warcrimes that make up that genocide.
and tell me how I’m defending IDF, even though I think IDF and Israeli government are terrorists.
You’re defending the warcrimes the IDF is committing.
Continue living in your cocoon of safety and self-righteousness sucking up all the propaganda and every conspiracy theory, thinking that your reactions on facebook/twitter videos help the people of Gaza.
Is that the cocoon where we observe a bunch of warcrimes committed in commission if a genocide and assume it’s probably fine? If a bridge isn’t too your taste, how about some lunar real estate?
Whe could continue this circle of me trying to explain things to a rock, but I’d rather use my time elsewhere.
Me challenging you on your total desregard for the rule of law, warcrimes, or the ongoing commission of a genocide isn’t a me problem.
I’ll be sorry to see you go - it was quaint hearing about this genocide that’s happening without Israel indiscriminately targeting civilians and your care for the rule of law as you defend the killing of those civilians while throwing around weak insults.
Yeah - fuck me for needing a reason to belive a genocidal regime drone striking civilians isn’t committing yet another warcrime, I guess.
Never mind that your logic could be used to defend the Nazis gassing millions of Jews because they don’t need to mail me justification for every person they killed - we don’t need to call for evidence - we need to give them the benefit of the doubt, right?
Is this some kind of humiliation fetish deal? I’m flattered but not interested - if nothing else, given the dumb, inconsistent nonsense you’re spouting, I’ve got concerns about your capacity for consent.
What did I say about trotting on, again? Get to it.
Yes - being flattered and disinterested in someone that just keeps coming back for more embarrassment is the creepy bit. It’s long past time you fucked off - this block is for your own good.
Try to work on your credulity - assuming civilians (and UN aid workers yesterday) being executed in drone strikes by a genocidal regime is all above board is evidence of a severe cognitive deficiency.
Edit: I guess we can throw the Iranian consulate on to the pile too.
Stop being hung up on the unarmed thing. All the badguys in movies are armed to make it clear to the audience and make it “justified”. Unarmed soldiers and military personnel make up a much larger chunk of casualties than you realize. Terrorists don’t just toss their guns to the side and claim immunity. They are still targets.
Anyway, I’ve made my points clear, I’ve explained various things using traceable, sound logic. You seem to have to not read it or comprehended it. I’m not going to waste my time with unreasonable, volatile people.
Literally zero evidence that this killing is justified in the context of a genocide that the Israeli government and IDF won’t shut up about, where the majority of their targets are women and children.
Don’t go pretending you know a thing about reason or that you’ve made any meaningful point whatsoever.
I think that person has very strong pre-concieved notions… At this point a rock on the ground is “evidence” to them that the rock is in cahoots with Israel, because children in Gaza, because obviously.
That video is evidence of nothing, but certain death of 4 unknown people, at an unknown location, recorded at unknown point in time.
Again, disclaimer: There’s an active genocide in Gaza, performed by Israel against Palestinians. Hamas is a terrorist organisation.
You can’t go and kill unarmed, non combative, un-uniformed people however you’d like.
You do need to prove that the people you are killing are actually combatants. Especially when you send a missile down someone’s head just walking on the street.
It’s absolutely true. We don’t know if IDF is collecting proof or not. And IDF absolutely does not need to provide proof to the public. Only to the people who are investigating the war. (Just like the person you are replying to stated)
“Neither IDF or Hammas has to provide proof of anything to anybody for any reason except when propagandantistic PR is at play”
That is simply not true. They do have to provide proof to somebody. You said so yourself. To the ones investigating. I can assure you. They are definatly included in these “anybody”
Also you’re wrong, you don’t need to prove that. At least not publicly which is what you seem to be implying. Intelligence has to prove that these people, or some of them, are Hamas, likely of some significance, maybe not. Then they have to be identified, monitored, and tracked for a strike opportunity. Then, when the entire chain of command is in agreement that that’s their guy and this is the best time, they attack.
In your version, the drone operator seems to have infinite ammo and gleeful fire-at-will orders. Killing anyone who is “just walking down the street.” Maybe the soldiers on the ground operate that way, but not drones or jets.
“In your version, the drone operator seems to have infinite ammo and gleeful fire-at-will orders. Killing anyone who is “just walking down the street.” Maybe the soldiers on the ground operate that way, but not drones or jets.”
Where are you getting this story from? I sure as hell didn’t even come close to mention or talk about anything of the sort.
And regarding your statement
“Intelligence has to prove that these people, or some of them, are Hamas, likely of some significance, maybe not. Then they have to be identified, monitored, and tracked for a strike opportunity. Then, when the entire chain of command is in agreement that that’s their guy and this is the best time, they attack.”
Do you have any source for that being the way they operate at every single strike. Any source that this is how it went down from what we saw? Or are you just guessing?
The video footage was from a month and a half ago, which means Al Jazeera should’ve been able to find out the identity of the men that were killed. They could definitely have gotten a comment from the IDF in that time frame.
Why didn’t they do that? Then we’d have confirmation that they’re civilian, or at the very least some explanation from the IDF. Whether someone is willing to believe what the IDF says is up to the viewer, but it should be included with the story. But they didn’t do that, and considered it unfit to air on their English language channels where it would face more scrutiny. Their Arabic channels are very different than their English language sites, and more willing to air straight up propaganda. The internet is also willing to share propaganda with no effort to verify they were civilians just an emphatic “there’s no way they can’t be cilivilians!!!” Most news organizations understand that Hamas routinely caches weapons and wear civilian clothing when thy move to other locations, but this isn’t given any consideration in this write-up.
Are they civilians? We simply can’t know because of the shoddy journalism at work here. But the point just seems to be to maintain outrage, and a lot of people aren’t looking for the normal information that should be there in a properly researched news story.
Lmao this isn’t small claims court. Those people were straight up murderer from long distance with missiles that American tax dollars very likely paid for.
Yeah, it doesn’t when the accused admits it and says “but they were all Hamas”. Since that moment the murder is proven, and “them all being Hamas” is what the accused is expected to find some court-worthy proof for.
Didn’t see any such comment in the article. You’re assuming an answer that wasn’t given and wasn’t even asked for. You’re building a fantasy story to prove guilt in your mind.
Meanwhile in the real world, there was at least $200K worth of munitions used in that video. You have to be really naive to think the decision to use such munitions didn’t go through the chain of command. So multiple people decided to use some very expensive munitions to kill some random civilians? Why? Because Israel is just that evil?
Stop inventing narratives in your mind and try to think more critically. The IDF isn’t going to have a drone following some random civilians, and then use three expensive smart bombs to take them out for no good reason. There are a lot of civilians in the area, there’s no need to use allocate that much hardware if the goal is to kill completely innocent civilians.
Your narrative depends on Israel not only being evil but also incredibly stupid in their use of resources. Given the lack of information given, lack of even basic levels of journalism, it’s far more likely to be propaganda.
Burden of proof is on those making claims. If you claim this is Israel killing Palestinians, you need to prove it’s Israel. Otherwise it’s some poor guys who lost their lives from an explosive. I didn’t even see the bomb falling.
I agree with your points. I’m gonna reply to you but be talking to anyone reading too. Thanks for your comment and critique.
Flat out though, the IDF is killing civilians. This is known.
But based off the comments and videos, I don’t think anything is known at all, but it seems unlikely these were civilians. Bizarrely, nearly everyone in this thread, and everyone who is going to downvote me, seems to want them to be civilians.
I would assume people would prefer them to be Hamas, who are terrorists and at the very least complicit in the massacre and kidnapping of Israeli civilians.
Outrage eliminates critical thinking and then anything that reinforces that outrage must be true.
I trust Al Jazeera, and I mourned their closure of Al Jazeera America as I was a supporter. But I could never trust anything they wrote about Israel and Gaza. It was barely veiled propaganda. This video is incindiary sensationalism because we are given zero context, but lots of guessing. By releasing this grizzly footage without context, that shows intent to exploit emotions and let us fill in the gaps. People really suck at this.
I’m really glad a bunch people, especially people like you, replied. It was fairly easy to separate the wheat from the chaff (that doesn’t mean only people who confirmed my suspicions btw) They/you spoke in terms of fact, objectivity, not in guesses, assumptions, and emotion.
To anyone who reads this ramble: If any journalist, holy-person, video, podcast, head-of-state, or meme is demanding your outrage, do not trust them because that is what propaganda looks like. This is a foundational aspect of media literacy and resisting the influence of power.
Flat out though, the IDF is killing civilians. This is known.
Every military in pretty much every war kills civilians. There is a distinction made between collateral damage and a military that deliberately targets civilians.
On October 7 Hamas deliberately targeting and killed civilians. This is known.
What we’ve seen from “alternative media” is a deliberate attempt to create a false equivalency between what Hamas did (genocide) and what Israel id doing (war). The video we’re commenting under now is one of many such reports.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence, But the non-stop barrage of disinformation that people are gleefully going along with eventually does lead to questions about the motivations behind this.
I mean Al Jazeera reports the casualties like a scorecard in a sport. The Hamas casualties are included in the same number of the total Palestinian casualty number. The Israeli casualty numbers are civilian casualties only. They don’t include IDF casualties in their numbers as they do with Hamas casualties.
It’s a war so there’s no way to know the exact numbers especially when the war is ongoing. Hamas has admitted 6000 of their fighters have died, and as with all wars we can assume the real number is much higher. And that’s 6000 fighting men they admitted to. There’s no number given for the military support personnel (which are valid targets in a war) that the IDF killed.
And I’ve noted that as the numbers for casualties have flattened nobody reports it anymore. Does fit the genocide narrative I suppose. If it were a genocide then you’d expect civilian casualties to increase as the “brave Hamas fighters” that are “protecting the civilians” are eliminated. But instead the civilian casualties are decreasing. Numbers simply don’t fit with the genocide narrative so they don’t get reported.
I just look at what both sides are saying and the truth is somewhere in between. The actions of Israel makes sense to me. Terrorists when into villages and murdered everyone they could find. That’s an act of war. Given the the casualties the inevitably come with a ground campaign, I wouldn’t want to do that. Unless of course the terrorists took hostages and I had no other choice. And since that’s what happened, here we are.
For the actions of Hamas they only explanation I have is that they’re psychopaths. If your goal is to negotiate, you don’t murder a thousand people. They wanted this war, and they took hostages to force Israel into a ground camping to maximize the Palestinian death toll to gain international sympathy.
What’s disturbing to me is how easily people are going along with the plan that was made by these psychopaths. They created a war which would inevitably lead to deaths and had their cameras ready to broadcast the propaganda. And a lot of people swallowed and got into a competition to prove how dedicated to the cause they are. To the point where they are being overtly being antisemitic now. What’s the goal? Keep Hamas alive so they can continue this cycle of violence forever.
Israel isn’t going anywhere, and hatred of Israel is only going to cause the deaths of even more people. Everyone needs to calm down with the constant outrage and think about the best way to end the violence. Spreading lies to keep everyone outraged and hating isn’t going to accomplish this.
It’s not helping Palestine in any way. There territory is shrinking as the continue to choose violence. I’m under no illusions that Israel is the good guy, it’s a country full of both good guys and bad guys like every other country. But when you choose violence the only thing that matters is which side has the stronger military. And that is clearly Israel. For the Palestinians the best course of action is to somehow let go of their hatred and negotiate for whatever they can get. What they can get at a negotiating table now is much less than what they would’ve gotten decades ago, but it’s more that they’ll get a few decades from now.
The dream of a Palestinian state is almost dead now and Biden is desperately trying to resuscitate it. Which is something that only people that get the news from reliable sources understand. The “alternative media” take is just that he’s “Genocide Joe.”
It’s gotten crazy how far the non-stop outrage has caused people to stray from reality. Most of the efforts of activists have been at best ineffective because they’re too disconnected from reality to have a message that makes sense to anyone that still lives in reality. At worst the activists are prolonging the war and are increasing the number of deaths in the conflict.
Ok now I’ve been rambling.
To anyone who reads this ramble: If any journalist, holy-person, video, podcast, head-of-state, or meme is demanding your outrage, do not trust them because that is what propaganda looks like. This is a foundational aspect of media literacy and resisting the influence of power.
You said it. Though it’s definitely understandable to be outraged by something that happened, you gotta stop and think about why someone is putting it in front of you. The mainstream media it’s their job to report the news and they have an incentive to be considered trustworthy so they’re going to make an effort to get the story right. Even then they get it wrong sometimes. Random person on the internet? They probably want to get clicks and don’t care if what they’re saying is a straight up lie. Or worse, they want you to be a part of a cause that serves their interests but don’t actually care about you.
They don’t know, they are just making assumptions that people got killed in Gaza. Even location is just bombed houses, of which there are plenty in the region and doesn’t necessarily mean it’s Gaza. And you get down-voted for simply doubting because that’s what people here do, hate on Israel and grasping at straws. Meanwhile, no one asked why were they being filmed. How did the person filming know that bombs will fall on those 4 guys in 5 or so minutes. Why did that one guy keep walking in the same direction and not try to save his life by running somewhere and hiding. I personally find all those things suspicious. But that sort of thinking doesn’t fit into idea that Israel is having fun killing people. So you, and now me, will get down voted.
I would also like to know why this camera drone is there, and why it’s following these guys, and how the operator has the best luck getting perfect footage.
Edit: This seems to be leaked footage from an Israeli intelligence/targeting drone. If that’s true, then that would prove that at least one of these were military targets.
Based on the video and logical deduction, this scenario seems to be the most probable.
If someone has another hypothesis on this subject, I would be very interested to read it. Assuming you don’t just downvote and attack me.
It was also pointed out, and I somehow missed it, the fact there was secondary explosion which no one tried to explain. If they weren’t armed and this attack was done via drone, why would there be smaller secondary explosion?
Seeing as israel regularly bombs civilians without evidence they are military, and they also use an AI system to pick targets, and the fact that these guys are clearly not armed, makes it very unlikely they were Hamas and very likely they were civilians.
The IDF is welcome to provide evidence of the contrary. Their track record of mass slaughtering civilians, especially children, sure isn’t helping them.
Dude, I really don’t give a damn about Israel. Seems like a nice place to visit. I know they’re killing civilians and I’ve said that. So why are you pushing me like I’m some shill? Because this video? There’s no evidence of any kind except observation. Anything else is conjecture, but there’s useless emotional conjecture and detached, deductive, logical type conjecture. I use belong in the latter.
I don’t know your source but I looked them up and they seem fine, with a possible bias as the founder is Pakistani, but who knows. A quote from another org inside of an article is not how to win people over. If you like a quote, go to the quote directly.
You’ve turned me off the conversation, with your baseless and cliche accusation, however. Insufferable.
“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).
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.
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.
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’.
Geopolitical power disparities will exist for as long as different value sets and systems exist. I don’t think it would be wise to even attempt to do away with them. Do remember, the sole purposes of the state from antiquity onward was to offer security against organized violence. Something must do so.
Regarding the fix for the domestic issues, again, that’s the breakup of concentrated capital. We had similar issues in the 19th century, and you can look at the reforms of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to see how we addressed them. We can do so again, and probably should pretty soon here.
It’s not that I’m unaware of the challenges we face, or inherent weaknesses of our system. My position is that it is difficult to solve them without simply becoming vulnerable to a different form of tyranny. It takes many forms, yes? With the oldest simply being people coming to kill you and take your stuff, as the Gazans and Ukrainians, among others, are currently experiencing.
Geopolitical power disparities will exist for as long as different value sets and systems exist.
So you don’t see a problem or otherwise don’t see a solution for economic imperialism…? I’m confused by this statement. Liberalism offers only voluntary exchange as a guiding principle, am I right in assuming you’re OK with economic imperialism?
Regarding the fix for the domestic issues, again, that’s the breakup of concentrated capital.
Ok… so do you have a problem with social democracies as opposed to liberal democracies? Anarcho syndicalism? What makes liberalism preferable to a democratic system that’s socially oriented instead of individually oriented?
To an extent, yes, I am okay with some economic imperialism. I would support laws that would restrict companies from working in overseas areas where slave wages are permitted, things like that. I do not see it as an all-or-nothing proposition though, it’s not yes/no, black/white.
I’m not advocating for liberalism, I haven’t been whatsoever. If you go back to my original comment, I was simply critiquing a statement of someone’s misunderstanding of it. I’m personally more left than that. I just support accuracy, not blind, wrong-headed criticism and hot takes. Just because someone may share my position does not give them license to spread misunderstanding. Misinformation is never okay, no matter the position, side or belief.
I do not support anarchism in any of its forms, however, I don’t think it can adequately maintain the military-industrial complex that modern warfare requires. Until warfare is a thing of the past, I don’t think it would be wise.
You misunderstand. Economic imperialism isn’t simply companies working overseas, it’s a nationstate wielding it’s economic advantage to establish market dominance over other countries. To my knowledge this is not a domestic policy issue but an international/Geopolitical issue. How would you go about breaking up a country that’s gotten too big? In this regard (and In regard to your first comment), liberalism is absolutely not “hands-off” or neutral, at best it’s ambivalent, but that sure as he’ll doesn’t mean it’s “hands-off”. You’re correcting an alleged misunderstanding with your own.
As for anarchism or social democracies or even communism, I’m not sure you really understand the terminologies. Anarchism doesn’t preclude a military, I’m not sure why you’d think that unless you took Anarchism to mean literally no governance at all. I don’t want to assume you haven’t, but I’d really recommend reading some lit on socialist economic structures, or even just some Locke and Rousseau to understand liberalism a bit better.
I was describing a single law I would support that would weaken economic imperialism. I was not saying that the law I proposed somehow solved it or anything, and that actually contradicts where I said I supported some. And please explain the difference between ambivalence/neutrality and hands-off.
A proper military-industrial complex requires a huge degree of coordination and stability across multiple independent sectors over many years. Only a large state is capable of managing the entire thing over the long periods of time necessary. An aircraft carrier battlefleet is a simply massive undertaking, requiring the efforts of millions of people over decades.
And please explain the difference between ambivalence/neutrality and hands-off.
Sure. In this context, ‘ambivalence’ means having an internal inconsistency, whereas a true-neutral system would give no preference for a particular relationship. I mean it as liberalism claiming to support voluntary engagement and mutual consent in relations, but is ambivalent (i.e. internally inconsistent) about the relative power/influence between ‘consenting’ parties, to the extent that one party may not have any choice but to enter into a contract. Even though liberalism depends on the concept of mutual agreement, it has no answer to one party having outsized leverage against another, especially since its alleged benefit is mutual consent as a system of self-regulation.
It is the difference between ‘social contracts’ as a neutral observation of power dynamics generally, and ‘liberalism’ as an idealistic system of self governance.
Only a large state is capable of managing the entire thing over the long periods of time necessary
Maybe if you take the US military as a standard, but even the founders envisioned a military comprised of independent militias. Besides, anarchosyndicalism traditionally acknowledges the need for a centralized government to ensure mutual security, even if they have strong feelings against a standing military the size of the current US one (with which I agree).
Anyway, I only posed that question to gauge your understanding of liberalism, since it seemed as if you understood it as something like “democracy”. I wanted to see what you thought the difference between liberal democracy and social democracy was. I haven’t been convinced you understand
Ah, that’s a fair distinction I suppose. That’s why I think we need more laws to limit how our companies are able to engage with less developed partners.
Even the British and French militaries have carriers, but all are large states. So long as the institution can coordinate the long-term strategic cooperation necessary to bring the pieces together, then I have nothing against it. It serves its primary purpose in this case.
I would describe a liberal democracy differing from a social democracy in the direction and degree of investment. Liberalism, as I said earlier, is philosophically hands-off. Ambivalent or neutral work fine as descriptors imo as well. You could say uncaring, if you liked. I do not really see the social contracts and mutual consent as envisioned by the people that wrote about it as being particularly real, in the minds of the people. And since they democratically control what happens, those don’t really end up existing.
Social democracy is focused more on equity for the populace. It does take those concepts more seriously.
I’ll stand by my earlier assertion, that liberalism is anything but neutral, perhaps not in the way that you understand it as being hands off.
In practice, liberal states end up being self-serving (as liberalism encourages), and since capital is allowed to accumulate, the state apparatus ends up being used in pursuit of capital interests. Even if ‘hands off’ is accurate when it comes to domestic economic policy (it is usually anything but), at the Geopolitical level that power dynamic is amplified.
Which is why people argue Israel is a vassel state: Israel’s strategic function (to the US’s economic interests) is to project power in the oil-rich middle east. It’s why the US puts up with and runs cover for them even as they are objectively the aggressors in a lopsided conflict. Any other ally in any other conflict would have been given the boot at this point. They’ve clearly overshot defense and are squarely in genocide at this point. The US has every excuse to end that alliance, but they don’t because they have financial interests through them.
The petroleum resources of the Middle East haven’t been needed for a decade now, that understanding that held true for half a century has simply become out-of-date. All that remains is the commonalities, ethnically diverse democracies with a long tradition of cooperation. Which may soon come to an end, finally, though that would really infuriate our evangelical wing, which is a significant fraction of our entire population. I completely disagree that “any other ally would’ve gotten the boot”. Look at Turkey’s history with their eastern minorities. I’m sure I could think of more examples as well. Can you name a time we’ve ever, in our entire history, “booted” an ally for atrocities?
Self-serving I’ll grant, I think that’s somewhat inherent to liberalism as a concept. Liberty itself. Recall, my original comment noted a certain “liberty to oppress”. We do not seriously challenge China over the oppression of their Muslims, we never seriously challenged the genocide in Rawanda, we didn’t even seriously challenge South African apartheid without significant prodding. It’s not liberty for everyone, it’s liberty for those strong enough to seize it. People seem to want to project some sort of “goodness” onto the USA, and honestly, I don’t think a typical middle-American wants that. As a democracy, if half of us don’t want that, then… what? Recall, we would have let the world fall in WW2, had Pearl Harbor never happened.
This is why I don’t strongly argue with people that claim liberalism naturally leans right, incidentally, I think it does. It has more in common, in American practice especially, with fascism than anything more leftist. This is one of the things that makes us so vulnerable to falling into actual full-blown fascism, as existed in the mid-20th century. The nastiest kind, that conquers land with the intention of keeping it, and exterminates people that get in the way.
Make no mistake, we are an extremely violent people, culturally. Look no further than our mass-media. It’s up to us to reform our system in healthier ways, as our founders intended, before it’s too late. Because when I say hands-off, it’s hands-off our most animalistic natures sometimes, and lead poisoning on top of that. Political theorists really don’t seem to get that, that many of us pine for the darkest days of our history.
This is why it’s so incomprehensible and stupid, imo, that someone could seriously think something inherent in our liberal democracy stands against genocide. It doesn’t, to the point that we could do some ourselves in the coming decades, after leaving NATO and aligning with Russia instead.
I completely disagree that “any other ally would’ve gotten the boot”. Look at Turkey’s history with their eastern minorities. I’m sure I could think of more examples as well. Can you name a time we’ve ever, in our entire history, “booted” an ally for atrocities?
Maybe I wasn’t clear; those allies are only allies because of what they provide us, and what Israel provides us is control and influence over the middle east. They represent our interests in exchange for us propping them up as a regional power (e.g. a VASSEL state). Sometimes barons form their own alliances and rebel, but they are still barons in the first instance.
They would get the boot if their behavior is in misalignment with the US’s interest, but coincidentally, genocide is not incomparable with what interests we have in the region. It’s just a bit ‘inconvenient’ to our brand.
It’s not liberty for everyone, it’s liberty for those strong enough to seize it
Which is why it is not ‘neutral’, it quite consciously gives advantage to hierarchical structures outside the state.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But none of that is unique. We have nukes that can touch every corner of the globe.
it doesn’t matter if “we” have nukes, it matters that the power occupying that strategic position has it. The US isn’t going to launch nukes if Iran marches into Israel, but Iran isn’t going to march into Israel so long as they have them themselves. You said it yourself: it is a vulnerable position for global trade. The US stands to loose the most, and all our opposition to gain the most, by a disruption there.
I don’t even know why you’re still harping on this, it seems pretty unimportant even by your own apparent worldview.
If Israel wasn’t there, the US strategic position in the Middle East would not change. It would not be noticeably weaker in any way.
As I said before, I’m a stickler for accuracy. I’m not the only one that keeps discussing it, at any rate. And this vassal state meme irritates me. It’s just vidya game meme bullshit, and when challenged, all you folks that like it seem to have is the most nebulous answers that are half-wrong.
edit: Actually, if Israel wasn’t there, our strategic position in the Middle East would get stronger. Israel is weakening us by making us so vulnerable to legitimate criticism.
If it were true that Israel means nothing to our strategic objectives, and that our continued alliance weakens us to criticism, then why the fuck would the US continue to support them? Israel offers them influence over the region, otherwise there’s no point in supporting their genocide. I would be seriously concerned if the US continued to support them if they didn’t have strategic interests through them. I’d love for you to venture a guess as to why you think the US continues supporting Israel, if you think that we’d actually be better off if we didn’t have them as an ally.
Make it make sense. You’re certainly not a stickler for internal consistency, that’s for sure.
I don’t know, I think I’ve been quite consistent throughout.
Asides the reasons I already gave you, that you seem to have suddenly forgotten, of both being ethnically diverse democracies with a long tradition of mutual support, there’s actually a much bigger reason:
The US has a vast number of global military alliances. Not just NATO, but also independent alliances with countries like Morocco, and larger bloc alliances, like the Rio Pact with most of South America. In many ways, we under-write global security, a concept sometimes referred to as Pax Americana. That entire system gets put on shakier ground if we suddenly turn around and betray our obligations to any one of those countries in the midst of a war. However we may see it from our own perspectives over here, Israel is very much fighting a war, a nearly total war even. Since we have promised our support, it would take quite a bit to force us to backtrack on that.
Additionally, it’s important to remember the US has no history of dropping an ally just for war crimes, and to the contrary, continued to support Turkey despite their own ethnic cleansing of their Kurds, which are actually another US ally entirely. So, the stuff certainly gets complicated sometimes.
Also, don’t forget the wishes of the American people. Until more recently, most supported the Israelis. They have particularly strong support on the religious right, so that’s another, probably more minor consideration.
So, three reasons, yes? Tradition, is one. Maintaining a reputation for honoring global security commitments, is two, and the biggest. Domestic politics is three.
Against those, all you seem to have is some mistaken assumption that the US drops allies for war crimes. Which is just nonsense. We sometimes commit war crimes, I assume you were aware of that.
That’s not a reason to do anything, it’s simply a reason not to think about it
Maintaining a reputation for honoring global security commitments
Those commitments mean nothing if they are indifferent to abuses, that goes both ways.
Domestic politics
Try again. US support for israel’s military action in Gaza is at 36%. If this was real, it’d be an explanation as to why we stopped support.
Against those, all you seem to have is some mistaken assumption that the US drops allies for war crimes. Which is just nonsense. We sometimes commit war crimes, I assume you were aware of that.
Because they have material benefits to our interests.
Just because you personally do not think a reason is important, like say, global security guarantees, does not mean Biden’s State Dept doesn’t. And their opinion matters far more than yours. Similar with our history of cooperation.
Your 36% is from recently. You’ll note it was not at that level a few months ago. You may also have noticed that Biden’s support of Israel has been steadily declining, we have recently stopped protecting them in the UN Security Council, for instance.
You can’t describe their material benefits to our interests in any way I haven’t already refuted. Position? Unnecessary when they are surrounded by our bases. Military contribution? Minor. Were there others? I forget.
I’m beginning to get the impression you’re just petulantly arguing at this point. You haven’t said anything about Turkey’s history with Kurds, or our long history of supporting other war criminals.
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.
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.
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.
Is your point that dehumanization is necessary for coercive power to be considered a positive? If so I agree.
I don’t understand how you consider institutions that wield coercive power to not be inherently dangerous. Seems like they certainly are for the people getting coerced.
I was trying to understand what you’re saying when you say
Many institutions wielding coercive power is not inherently dangerous, just perhaps inefficient.
Because the danger of coercion to the people being coerced is very real for any ideology. I agree that whether wielding coercive power is seen as a positive or a negative depends on ideology.
Hm. Valid question. In my view all forms of influence are fundamentally coercive at a certain level. I perhaps misspoke when I said they’re not inherently dangerous though. Instead that danger gets spread out in a way where diverging interests and goals are meant to help keep that in check, in the liberal ideology. This is merely mitigation though, it does not actually diffuse the danger.
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.
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.
commondreams.org
Active