Imagine if China built one base in Mexico or the Caribbean. People would be treating it like a declaration of war. Meanwhile the US builds a ring of military bases in countries surrounding China and that's not supposed to be seen as bellicose in any way.
> Meanwhile the US builds a ring of military bases in countries surrounding China and that's not supposed to be seen as bellicose in any way.
Shouldn't you take WWII history into the account?
1. South Korea - Korean war happened and majority of South Korean want US military base there 'cause you know North Korea with its nukes point at Seoul.
2. Japan - well, everyone know what happened and the treaty were signed thus military base in Japan.
That's because the US was founded on a unique constitution to empower individuals against tyranny, then defeated (with Russia, mind) the Nazis in world war II, bootstrapped the UN, went to the moon, and ushered in an era of global leadership and peace, along with unmatched soft power (films, news, etc). Camelot, shining city on the hill. China had a bloody communist revolution, then got rich (in part by breaking deals and ripping off IP) - also through hard work. America is porous, "Shortbus", "anyone can make it", American dream. China is ethnonationalist, and has a sense of ethnic and cultural supremacy that is not inclusive of "outsiders". That's why it's a problem, and, rightly, seen/intuitied to be a problem, more so than the US (despite US' many failings/misteps, etc).
Stop using Apple, or Google, or Amazon, or Intel, or Broadcom, or Nvidia then. All have vast hardware development activities in that one country you don't like.
How dare you have a moral objection to buying from a state accused of genocide. Please stick to completely organic complaints about comedy festivals and soccer tournaments.
Re: Western. A similar thing plays out when the term "international community" is used in news. It refers to the US and its major allies which means US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand more or less.
Essentially countries that were developed prior to 1990 or so , although South Korea is a tricky case today going by this definition, as are Taiwan, Hongkong and Singapore
> A similar thing plays out when the term "international community" is used in news. It refers to the US and its major allies which means US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand more or less.
Wait, really? I thought "international community" meant all countries.
There was a particularly memorable use of this sense some time ago, when the UK representative to the UN explained that they abstained from a vote in the General Council that passed with something like 200+ members voting for it because "the international community is still divided on the topic".
Sometimes it's used in the expected way, but (more?) often, "international community" euphemistically refers to whomever is currently one of, or an ally of the above mentioned countries.
China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and many many other countries that are very active members of the international community are not counted among members of THE "international community". Hell, much of Europe isn't either, including some of the former colonial empires, on some topics.
China, Russia, India are certainly referred to when using this term. Iran and Saudi Arbia may or may not be. Usually not Pakistan, so I really dont know what in the hell you are saying.
Denying Palestinians their basic human rights to create an apartheid ethno state is not complex.
The narrative that “it is complex therefore there is nothing to be done” is meant to paralyze people from standing up for what’s right.
The solution has always been a single democratic secular state from the river to the sea. For all inhabitants of the land. Including those expelled previously.
A two-state solution is still possible, but becoming vanishingly small:
On the Palestinian side, it doesn't give them the "right of return" (to the land they were expelled from in 1948) that they frankly deserve, which is a tough pill to swallow for them. But besides some hardliners they've pretty much resigned themselves to the fact they'll never get their stolen land back (much like the Native Americans).
On the Israeli side, it's much more problematic as it would mean dismantling many or all of the settlements on the WB. This is anathema to Israel and would be heavily resisted (perhaps violently) by the settlers who were put there in the first place expressly to prevent a two-state solution. Israel deliberately violated all the agreements about settlements reached over the years in order to create a situation where it could say "we can't expect those settlers to move out". It's no coincidence that the settlers who were given the stolen land are generally the most militant of the Israelis, and many are heavily armed, by the way.
Every single one of these companies that have enabled the genocide should be help accountable. Maybe some are trying to claim plausible deniability.
--
For those looking for direct sources on the findings of genocide in Gaza, here are several key reports and legal conclusions from human rights organizations, international courts, and genocide scholars:
3. B'Tselem (The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories): Published their conclusion that Israel is committing genocide.
* Report ("Our Genocide"): https://www.btselem.org/publications/202507_our_genocide
4. International Court of Justice (ICJ): Ruled in January 2024 that it is plausible Israel's acts could violate the Genocide Convention.
* Case Details: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192
Beyond these formal reports, it's crucial to acknowledge that this has been one of the most documented atrocities in history, often livestreamed by Palestinians on the ground. Their testimonies have been consistent from the beginning, yet they are frequently dismissed until a non-Palestinian, "human" source validates their lived experience.
Proof? Or just what is convenient for you to believe?
If anything, quite the opposite. Think about this logically - why the need for expensive surveillance if your chief goal was to annihilate a population?
Genocide is not the same as extermination. The goal of expulsion is to obtain land. Surveillance programs facilitate ethnic cleansing by countering resistance.
For those looking for direct sources on the findings of genocide in Gaza, here are several key reports and legal conclusions from human rights organizations, international courts, and genocide scholars:
3. B'Tselem (The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories): Published their conclusion that Israel is committing genocide.
* Report ("Our Genocide"): https://www.btselem.org/publications/202507_our_genocide
4. International Court of Justice (ICJ): Ruled in January 2024 that it is plausible Israel's acts could violate the Genocide Convention.
* Case Details: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192
Beyond these formal reports, it's crucial to acknowledge that this has been one of the most documented atrocities in history, often livestreamed by Palestinians on the ground. Their testimonies have been consistent from the beginning, yet they are frequently dismissed until a non-Palestinian, "human" source validates their lived experience.
>why the need for expensive surveillance if your chief goal was to annihilate a population
A question suited for ITF and Netanyahu maybe? Ask them spend less. He gets to prolong this Genocide, then he gets to stay out of trial for his previous crimes. Maybe ITF is not in a hurry.
(yes very proud of myself for this )
reply