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.”

  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 个月前

    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.

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

      No, I said: What is ideological is to assume that something else exhibiting coercive power is some inherent negative.

      It can certainly be considered negative. Considering it so is ideological, however.

      • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 个月前

        I don’t see how exhibiting coercive power can be considered positive or neutral, especially in the context of imperialism or neocolonialism

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

          That’s fine. My point is that other ideologies would disagree. Fascism, for instance, is an ideology where coercive power is considered positive.

          • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 个月前

            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.

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

              You keep trying to put words in my mouth. All I was saying is that all of this is ideological in nature. Because someone was trying to say it wasn’t.

              What is or isn’t dangerous, the importance of humanity, the role of institutions, this is all ideology.

              • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                7 个月前

                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.

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

                  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.