The Gaza Holocaust and Global Warming

 

It just occurred to me that the collective response to the horrifying images of the results of Israel's genocidal starvation policy in Gaza sums up our society's probable response to Global Warming.  In both of these subjects we have known for a long time what is going on.  We have protested to no great effect while our elites have done everything to perpetuate these crimes.  We have continued to allow them to get away with it and then we get surprised that a point of no return has been reached.  

With Gaza, it's been pretty clear that this was going to happen.  The Israelis have been very clear that they want to the total expulsion of the Palestinians from Palestine.  They have said straight out that they can either stay and be killed or they can leave.   The latter option is problematic because none of the neighbouring Arab states will take them and neither will Israel's Western allies.  [Witness, for instance, the glacial pace with which Canada processes refugee applications from Gaza.]  But the refusal of other countries to take the Palestinians isn't seen as a problem for the Israelis.   That's something the Palestinians will have to figure out as the Israelis continue to kill them.

Bad Times Ahead

 

Reading this eloquent description of how Western liberals have destroyed any claims of moral legitimacy:

The September deadline set by France, the UK, Australia and Canada for Israel to stop its genocide and commit to a two-state solution is fast approaching. And looming alongside this deadline is a final crisis of legitimacy for western liberalism.

Just a Link to an International Affairs Canada Report on Avoiding Complicity in Genocide

 

Actually the report is called "Preventing Complicity: A Review of Canada's Arms Export Policy."  I just found it the other day and I've only read a bit of it.

Double standards on part of Canada with respect to its declared commitments and values, particularly with respect to its support for the rules-based international order and the promotion of international law and human rights risks undermining Canadian diplomatic credibility and international standing. Moreover, Canada benefits from a rules-based international order in which the behaviour of powerful states, and their treatment of smaller-states, is regulated by universally respected and enforced international rules. Canada has recognized that contraventions or transgressions of international rules by any state threaten its interests, and therefore Canada must recognize that this applies equally to itself. Canada’s stated commitments to international law and the promotion of democracy and human rights is called into question by its trend of exporting arms to states involved in IHL and IHRL violations. Although Canada is a state party to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), and despite having some of the strongest arms export controls in the world, a review of past policies shows that these controls are not always applied in an objective or transparent manner. GAC has applied overly narrow interpretations of risk in evaluating the potential for Canadian military goods and technology to be used in violations, often focusing on actual evidence of misuse of Canadian arms by the recipient state rather than on the prospective, “substantial risk” of misuse as required by its obligations under the ATT. This has rendered arms exports controls largely reactive rather than proactive, often responding to abuses involving Canadian arms rather than preventing such abuses and implicating Canadian-made arms in serious violations of international law. Recent Canadian arms exports to Israel (both directly from Canada and indirectly from the USA), despite credible evidence from international institutions of Israeli crimes in Gaza, have exposed further issues in GAC’s risk assessment methodology. The current volatility in the international system demands increased prudence in arms transfer practices. Following a review of these past and current policies, a consideration of Canadian interests and values, goals and objectives, relevant stakeholders, and programmatic needs, we present three costed options all aimed at strengthening arms exports risk assessment process and thereby preventing Canadian complicity in serious violations of international law. Considering all the relevant factors and pros and cons, we recommend fully incorporating Canada’s ATT obligations into domestic law and introducing greater external oversight of the export permit evaluation and risk assessment process via independent advisory committee.

 

Perhaps someone else might be interested in looking at it too.