521
'Horrifying' Footage Shows IDF Killing Two Gazans, Burying Their Bodies With a Bulldozer
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
521 points (93.8% liked)
World News
38973 readers
3474 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Fair enough.
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.
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.
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'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:
If you agree that liberalism advantages external power structures and enables the consolidation thereof then there remains no disagreement between us.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Those commitments mean nothing if they are indifferent to abuses, that goes both ways.
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.
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.