You’re framing the issue around people being born in a place and therefore having rights to stay there. Applied consistently, this logic would extend to Israeli settlers born in those areas. Whether one agrees with the settlements or not, denying that symmetry exposes a selective application of principle—which makes it not a principle at…
You’re framing the issue around people being born in a place and therefore having rights to stay there. Applied consistently, this logic would extend to Israeli settlers born in those areas. Whether one agrees with the settlements or not, denying that symmetry exposes a selective application of principle—which makes it not a principle at all, but a bias.
What Israel is doing in Gaza is an ongoing genocide—defined both by the destruction of civilian infrastructure and the systematic targeting of a population under the framework of collective punishment. This doesn’t need exaggeration or historical analogies. It stands on its own as a modern atrocity.
And yet, Israel receives more UN resolutions than any other country. That’s a fact. But ongoing genocides—against the Uyghurs in China, the Rohingya in Myanmar, ethnic minorities in Western Sahara, and others—draw significantly less scrutiny. This isn’t a defense of Israel. It’s an indictment of selective outrage and the geopolitical convenience it serves.
I understand even pointing that out carries risk—some will interpret it as deflection. It’s not. Acknowledging asymmetry in global attention doesn’t erase any crimes; it reveals how outrage is manipulated, often to serve broader power structures.
That manipulation benefits states like Russia and China, who are more than happy to see Western credibility burn. The Palestinian cause has become a geopolitical pressure valve—and in that game, moral clarity is often sacrificed first.
I’m genuinely curious—what state do you believe still holds credibility in the international system?
Before anyone throws out examples like South Africa, let’s remember 2015, when they openly ignored an ICC warrant and refused to arrest Omar al-Bashir. That’s not a moral judgment—it’s just factual behavior. And I can dig up examples like this for any state you name. As Francesca Albanese said: there is no country that doesn’t violate international law in some form.
If you’re talking about consistent conduct on the world stage, probably the Nordic countries come closest—and they’re squarely part of “the West.”
At the end of the day, everyone wipes their ass with international law. So let’s stop pretending anyone has some kind of moral high ground.
I don’t have an issue with the idea of moving beyond nation-states. I lean toward European federalism, so the concept isn't foreign to me.
But let's not kid ourselves—whether you call it a nation, empire, tribe, or corporation, power structures are inevitable. Some entity will create rules, enforce them, and hold a monopoly on violence. That’s not ideology; that’s game theory and history.
The label—nation, religion, king, tribe, or market—is just branding. The structure remains: organized authority backed by force. You can dream of no countries, but unless you’ve figured out how to eliminate hierarchy and scarcity, someone’s still going to be in charge.
The outrage - do UN General Assembly resolutions convey outrage? I think from some EU MPs we’ve seen outrage directed towards their peers and Israel. Or US congressman/senators against US support for Israel- there is no disagreement in the west on Chinas crimes; Russias infractions are being questioned by the public and by some politicians in the west.
I get it—you’re frustrated, and honestly, I understand. But let’s not pretend there’s no global outrage. This issue dominates headlines. There are lawsuits like the Hindi Rajab Foundation, constant UN discussions, street protests, statements from EU MPs and US congress members, journalists reporting daily—if that’s not outrage, I don’t know what is. If you’re hearing about something consistently at least twice a week, across months, from major institutions, then yeah, that’s a global outrage. Maybe it’s not the form you expect, but it’s real.
Now, to put things in broader context—not to relativize suffering in Gaza, but to offer some perspective—let's talk about Sudan. In the last 16 months, over 150,000 people have died, and more than 14 million have been displaced. There are documented genocidal acts, ethnic cleansing campaigns, mass sexual assaults, and even reports that women are forming death pacts to avoid capture, rape, and being burned alive by RSF forces. This is real. It’s happening. And yet it receives maybe 1% of the coverage Gaza does.
You know, the Nakba was an awful event—about 700,000 Palestinians were displaced, and roughly 10,000 died. But at the exact same time, between 12 to 14 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe. Between 500,000 and 2 million of them died, and they were never even given the status of refugees. You probably never heard much about that.
Or Rwanda. Most people know about the 1994 genocide. But far fewer know what happened after: when the Tutsis returned, they played the UNO reverse card and massacred Hutus across Eastern Congo—some of the worst massacres in modern African history.
These aren’t outliers. These are normal chapters in human history.
That’s why it matters who gets to frame the narrative. The humanitarian salience of an event—how visible, how morally weighted, how talked-about it is—isn’t a reflection of the raw suffering. It’s a reflection of who is putting energy and resources into keeping it visible. That doesn’t mean it’s fake or manufactured—but it does mean there are many tragedies happening all the time, and only the ones someone fights for will be seen.
You’re framing the issue around people being born in a place and therefore having rights to stay there. Applied consistently, this logic would extend to Israeli settlers born in those areas. Whether one agrees with the settlements or not, denying that symmetry exposes a selective application of principle—which makes it not a principle at all, but a bias.
What Israel is doing in Gaza is an ongoing genocide—defined both by the destruction of civilian infrastructure and the systematic targeting of a population under the framework of collective punishment. This doesn’t need exaggeration or historical analogies. It stands on its own as a modern atrocity.
And yet, Israel receives more UN resolutions than any other country. That’s a fact. But ongoing genocides—against the Uyghurs in China, the Rohingya in Myanmar, ethnic minorities in Western Sahara, and others—draw significantly less scrutiny. This isn’t a defense of Israel. It’s an indictment of selective outrage and the geopolitical convenience it serves.
I understand even pointing that out carries risk—some will interpret it as deflection. It’s not. Acknowledging asymmetry in global attention doesn’t erase any crimes; it reveals how outrage is manipulated, often to serve broader power structures.
That manipulation benefits states like Russia and China, who are more than happy to see Western credibility burn. The Palestinian cause has become a geopolitical pressure valve—and in that game, moral clarity is often sacrificed first.
Westerners have done a fine job burning their own credibility- after Gaza - we have zero.
The Abrahamic Capitalist paradigm is done. We need to eradicate all Abrahamic and Capitalist being if we want humanity to survive global warming.
I’m genuinely curious—what state do you believe still holds credibility in the international system?
Before anyone throws out examples like South Africa, let’s remember 2015, when they openly ignored an ICC warrant and refused to arrest Omar al-Bashir. That’s not a moral judgment—it’s just factual behavior. And I can dig up examples like this for any state you name. As Francesca Albanese said: there is no country that doesn’t violate international law in some form.
If you’re talking about consistent conduct on the world stage, probably the Nordic countries come closest—and they’re squarely part of “the West.”
At the end of the day, everyone wipes their ass with international law. So let’s stop pretending anyone has some kind of moral high ground.
Nation States are a shitty idea. Imagine there're no countries. It's easy if you try.
I don’t have an issue with the idea of moving beyond nation-states. I lean toward European federalism, so the concept isn't foreign to me.
But let's not kid ourselves—whether you call it a nation, empire, tribe, or corporation, power structures are inevitable. Some entity will create rules, enforce them, and hold a monopoly on violence. That’s not ideology; that’s game theory and history.
The label—nation, religion, king, tribe, or market—is just branding. The structure remains: organized authority backed by force. You can dream of no countries, but unless you’ve figured out how to eliminate hierarchy and scarcity, someone’s still going to be in charge.
The outrage - do UN General Assembly resolutions convey outrage? I think from some EU MPs we’ve seen outrage directed towards their peers and Israel. Or US congressman/senators against US support for Israel- there is no disagreement in the west on Chinas crimes; Russias infractions are being questioned by the public and by some politicians in the west.
I get it—you’re frustrated, and honestly, I understand. But let’s not pretend there’s no global outrage. This issue dominates headlines. There are lawsuits like the Hindi Rajab Foundation, constant UN discussions, street protests, statements from EU MPs and US congress members, journalists reporting daily—if that’s not outrage, I don’t know what is. If you’re hearing about something consistently at least twice a week, across months, from major institutions, then yeah, that’s a global outrage. Maybe it’s not the form you expect, but it’s real.
Now, to put things in broader context—not to relativize suffering in Gaza, but to offer some perspective—let's talk about Sudan. In the last 16 months, over 150,000 people have died, and more than 14 million have been displaced. There are documented genocidal acts, ethnic cleansing campaigns, mass sexual assaults, and even reports that women are forming death pacts to avoid capture, rape, and being burned alive by RSF forces. This is real. It’s happening. And yet it receives maybe 1% of the coverage Gaza does.
You know, the Nakba was an awful event—about 700,000 Palestinians were displaced, and roughly 10,000 died. But at the exact same time, between 12 to 14 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from Eastern Europe. Between 500,000 and 2 million of them died, and they were never even given the status of refugees. You probably never heard much about that.
Or Rwanda. Most people know about the 1994 genocide. But far fewer know what happened after: when the Tutsis returned, they played the UNO reverse card and massacred Hutus across Eastern Congo—some of the worst massacres in modern African history.
These aren’t outliers. These are normal chapters in human history.
That’s why it matters who gets to frame the narrative. The humanitarian salience of an event—how visible, how morally weighted, how talked-about it is—isn’t a reflection of the raw suffering. It’s a reflection of who is putting energy and resources into keeping it visible. That doesn’t mean it’s fake or manufactured—but it does mean there are many tragedies happening all the time, and only the ones someone fights for will be seen.