I saw an article about them attacking Lebanon now. So, where will it stop? Did the Israeli government ever spoke about this?
Well, yeah. That’s the idea. Why would they go this far and not go all the way? They know damn good and well that as long as they keep things just barely on the end where genocide isn’t stated as a goal, and they maintain a position of alliance with most of the west, nobody is going to actually stop them.
Hell, without starting a world war, I’m not even sure they can be stopped.
On the world stage? There aren’t enough nations with power that actually care about Palestine. Yeah, leaders will make noise and pretend to care, but Palestine offers nothing to the major powers worth intervening for.
Sounds sociopathic, right? That’s the leaders of most of the world. People drawn to power rarely have the ethical rigor to wield said power. Those that do, still have to deal with oligopoly, hidden fascists, and the reality that no nation can really take action without upsetting the whole damn thing.
yggstyle@lemmy.world 5 months ago
This may not be a popular response but when did the nazi regime stop? When did China stop with it’s cleansing? America and manifest destiny? I could go on… Humanity needs to realize that we are pretty shitty in general and can’t be trusted when it comes to hatred, entitlement, and tribalism.
The solution is a neutral third party with sufficient power to stop any country’s bullshit through economic and military (actual) peacekeeping… which doesn’t exist nor will it ever.
So the short answer is they will stop when the cleansing is complete.
After the deed is done we as ‘civilized’ nations will lament the tragedy and promise change… until the media cycle washes all those sins down the drain and it will be forgotten until next time.
Surp@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I am in no way saying what’s going on is right…anytime massive amounts of life is taken it’s horrible. With that being said you realize that there isn’t a single country in the entire world that wasn’t built on the blood of others? Every civilization that’s here now destroyed some other one. People act like they live in some place that asked nicely to have the land they have.
yggstyle@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Oh, I’m fully aware. Tribalism is the lizard brain going deeeep in the paint. The problem is this: peaceful culture doesn’t fight back - aggressive culture exploits this: which one thrives? We have systematically bred for and codified our warlike nature. This is the result. Is it fixable? Many have tried. Our history books are littered with both failed attempts and their distorted remains. All I can say for certain is that the way the majority of countries are structured… isn’t it. This is fundamentally why achieving a fix is nearly impossible at scale: tribalism. Even if we are wrong it’s our wrong and we don’t want to lose it. This is rooted in fear of change which from a survival aspect makes sense… but becomes detrimental at scale.
thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 5 months ago
No. Moral. States
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 5 months ago
No. That would not be a solution for anything! That would just be an even bigger threat to humanity.
yggstyle@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I disagree. It’s about execution - creating an environment that is resistant to corrosion. A standing force can absolutely be viewed in that manner - which is why it cannot be a single static standing force.
The UN is the right idea but it needs teeth. And it needs the teeth to be double sided. If boots are on the ground peacekeeping they should be without bias and secondary interest. An attack on a peacekeeper has no guarantee of the creed nor country of origin of that keeper.
Peacekeeping should be like a draft. Every country that participates must provide and maintain a set number of rolling participants. These people will serve and train initially in humanitarian deployments with others… half way through their ‘term’ they should be moved to peacekeeping duties. This is idealized but would be good for both building trust amongst peacekeepers and goodwill towards them. This solves the military portion (roughly) - I have a lot of thoughts on this and believe it to be solvable… it just won’t be. No country gets to benefit therefore it has no merit.
That covered the military side… when talking about the economic side: the peacekeepers (let’s say un for simplicity) carry the ability to (by vote) censure a country and cut it off from direct trade / support. At that time any trade is then routed through the UN and it becomes the middleman. This allows economic pressures to be precisely controlled on an area. Once that country falls in line, by majority vote, operations are restored. Once again this is idealized and has no obviously advantaged party … so it has no merit and will never occur.
Basically everyone is equally held accountable and equally invested. Of course this means everyone gets a seat at the table and everyone gets one vote. I’m certain we can already see why this has 0 chance of ever happening. Those in power seek to keep it - very few will willingly give some away.
YourPrivatHater@ani.social 5 months ago
This is the most reasonable approach, but as seen with the UN, wich as the sum of its parts failed to keep dictatorships out wich now basically control everything but the security Council and the ICJ, its a Utopist approach sadly. There cant be a peace unless Israel takes over Palestine and treats the people that live there now as equal (wich they do already btw, the myth about apartheid is BS there are many Arab Palestinians living in Israel and many went to work in Israel from gaza) but the problem with the surrounding terrorists is another problem.
Carrolade@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The claim of Israeli apartheid does not pertain to the status of Israeli Arabs fyi. It pertains to de facto Israeli control of Gaza and the West Bank, where any time they want the IDF can exercise as much control as they want, by virtue of superior firepower.
Hamas, for instance, only persisted because the Israelis allowed it. Israel controlled the majority of access to the regions, and could and did unilaterally police them with military force at will.
Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The Apartheid is very much real, and, while to a much lesser extent than the Palestinian Occupied Territories, also applies to the Palestinian Citizens of Israel
Other reports about how Israel is an Apartheid State:
Human Rights Watch Report
B’TSelem Report with quick Explainer
Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 5 months ago
The UN while created with noble intentions certainly fell for the paradox of tolerance. They tolerate the dictatorships and human rights abusers because if they didn’t they’d be much less empowered to take action against them, or worse they’d form their own competing UN made up of nations motivated to join them and you’d just end up with another NATO and Warsaw Pact for example. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Ultimately the challenge comes down to how do you ultimately tame the leaders of the world who have absolute power. The founding fathers of America thought they had the solution with democracy and the many checks and balances they implemented into this new form of government they setup, but even that has its challenges and failures that they never could have forseen. The UN was the next experiment, trying to take the similar principles onto the world stage, and it’s been less successful (but at least has had some successes)
SurpriZe@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Options for this third party?
Soggy@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Aliens.