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

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

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

  • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
      41·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
          4·
          3 months ago

          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’.

          • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
              2·
              3 months ago

              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?

              • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                3 months ago

                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.

                • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
                  2·
                  3 months ago

                  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.

                  • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    3 months ago

                    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.