|
Gaza ‘Aid’ That Isn’t
Amid US pressure, Netanyahu announces resumption of Gaza aid without Cabinet vote – Ynet News, May 18 2025
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday authorized the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza, a decision made without a cabinet vote and against the apparent will of a majority of ministers. The move came amid mounting pressure from the United States to prevent a worsening humanitarian crisis in the territory.
Tobias Cole comments:
Bibi and the War Cabinet are clinically insane……..30 trucks per WEEK, to feed a population of 2.3 million people, is not nearly enough and they clearing know that.
If the EU is dumb enough to fall for this charade, then I have a bridge to sell them…….these officials like Smotrich are engaged in massive war crimes and are admitting so in the media daily……they have now issued orders to evacuate the second largest city in Gaza – Khan Yunis and have already completely destroyed in the entire municipality of Gaza City.
In the midst of these evacuation they continue missile attacks on refugee tent cities and hospitals…..
The IDF is now flying drones near hospitals to specifically ID persons with wish to assassinate – including individual public servants, doctors, nurses, emts, ambulance drivers, police officers, firefighters, journalists, every one with a public service duty is now be marked for elimination by the IDF…..
Massive war crimes……all in the name of rump state of Israel……….
I could not verify the tweet below. But as Zionist sadism has no bounds whatever, it is certainly a possibility …
Sarah Wilkinson @swilkinsonbc – 12:18 UTC · May 19, 2025
It looks like flour, but it’s shrouds, which do NOT classify as “basic aid” morally or under any law: 9 lorries of burial clothes #GazaDeathCamps
Pic (of truck load)
Posted by: Republicofscotland | May 19 2025 17:58 utc | 27
[In the context of the behavior of Israel WRT Gaza RepublicofScotland says:
“The human species is a vile species – a parasite.
In the same context:
A. Posted by: tobias cole | May 19 2025 18:03 utc | 29 who said “So many of the actions of the IDF and the Bibi War Cabinet and the statements of its individual members like Smotrich have paralells with the actions of the Brits in Ireland and Africa and India.”
B. Posted by: saner | May 19 2025 18:06 utc | 31
I can think of no [species] that were knowingly evil to their own on a consistent basis. Ours even celebrate their evil on social media.
C. many, many other examples
Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | May 19 2025 19:01 utc | 46
organizing the homeless. And, NO, this is not a call to violence. Just the opposite. Peaceful as can be.
<= I think you hit the missing keyword "Organization"..humanity is generally peace loving..I believe its default average behavior is live and let live.... the behaviors of those who run the governments in the nation state system are reflections of the beliefs, desires and emotions (BDE) held by those who are in a position to rule. and we all know left unchecked BDE can be deadly to large segments of our humanity (as in Gaza for example).
According to AI, The question of whether individuals inherently seek to avoid moral restraint is complex and intersects with various fields, including psychology, sociology, and philosophy. While there may not be direct data supporting a universal hypothesis that all individuals seek to avoid moral restraint, several studies and theories can provide insights into human behavior regarding morality and ethical decision-making.
1. Psychological Studies: Research in psychology often explores moral decision-making and the factors that influence ethical behavior. For example, studies on moral dilemmas (like the trolley problem) reveal that people's decisions can be influenced by emotional responses, social norms, and situational factors. Some individuals may prioritize personal gain or self-interest over moral considerations, especially in competitive environments.
2. Social Psychology: Theories such as the "bystander effect" illustrate how individuals may avoid taking moral action in group settings, often due to diffusion of responsibility. This suggests that in certain contexts, people may prioritize self-preservation or social conformity over moral action.
3. Evolutionary Psychology: Some theories propose that certain moral behaviors have evolved to promote social cohesion and cooperation. However, they also suggest that individuals may have innate tendencies toward selfishness or self-interest, which can conflict with moral restraint.
4. Cultural Variability: Different cultures have varying norms and values regarding morality and ethical behavior. In some societies, individualism may be more pronounced, leading to a greater emphasis on personal freedom and self-interest, potentially at the expense of moral restraint.
5. Criminal Behavior Studies: Research on criminal behavior often examines the motivations behind actions that violate moral and legal standards. Factors such as socio-economic status, upbringing, and peer influence can contribute to a tendency to avoid moral restraint in certain individuals.
6, Philosophical Perspectives: Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes have argued that humans are naturally self-interested and require social contracts or laws to impose moral restraint. In contrast, others, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, believed that humans are inherently good but are corrupted by society.
While these areas of research provide insights into human behavior concerning moral restraint, it's important to note that human motivations are diverse and context-dependent. Not all individuals seek to avoid moral restraint, and many actively strive to uphold ethical standards. The interplay between individual desires, societal norms, and situational factors creates a complex landscape of moral behavior.
According to AI; The question of whether individuals who seek top-level political positions exhibit both self-gain motives and an aversion to moral constraints is a nuanced one. While there is no definitive answer, several lines of research and theory can provide insights into this phenomenon:
Motivations for Political Ambition: Studies in political psychology suggest that individuals who pursue high political office may be motivated by a combination of factors, including a desire for power, influence, and personal gain. Some research indicates that individuals with high levels of ambition may also possess traits associated with narcissism or Machiavellianism, which can correlate with self-serving behavior and a willingness to manipulate moral norms for personal advantage.
Moral Flexibility: Research has shown that individuals in positions of power may exhibit "moral flexibility," where they justify unethical behavior to achieve their goals. For example, studies have found that power can lead to a diminished sense of empathy and an increased likelihood of engaging in unethical behavior, as individuals may prioritize their interests over moral considerations.
Corruption and Ethical Violations: There is substantial evidence that individuals in high political positions may engage in corrupt practices, which often involve a disregard for moral and ethical constraints. Corruption studies indicate that the higher the position of power, the greater the potential for ethical violations, often driven by self-interest.
Social and Environmental Influences: The political environment can also play a significant role in shaping behavior. In highly competitive political landscapes, individuals may feel pressured to prioritize self-gain over moral considerations to succeed. Additionally, the culture within political institutions can influence the behavior of those in power, potentially normalizing unethical practices.
Public Perception and Stereotypes: There is a common stereotype that politicians are self-serving and willing to compromise their morals for power. While this stereotype may not apply to all individuals in politics, it reflects a broader societal concern about the integrity of political leaders and the potential for self-interest to overshadow ethical behavior.
Counterexamples: It's important to note that not all individuals who seek political office exhibit these traits. Many politicians are motivated by a genuine desire to serve the public, promote social justice, and uphold ethical standards. There are numerous examples of leaders who prioritize moral considerations and work to enact positive change.
In summary, while there is evidence to suggest that some individuals who seek top political positions may exhibit self-gain motives and a tendency to disregard moral constraints, this is not universally true. The motivations and behaviors of political leaders are complex and influenced by a variety of factors, including personal values, societal norms, and the political context in which they operate.
According to AI: The phenomenon of populations often not reacting strongly against amoral behaviors exhibited by those in high-level positions of power can be attributed to several interrelated factors:
1. Normalization of Behavior: Over time, certain unethical behaviors can become normalized within political or organizational cultures. When such behaviors are frequently observed, they may be perceived as standard practice, leading to desensitization among the public.
2. Power Dynamics: Individuals in positions of power often have significant control over resources, information, and narratives. This can create a power imbalance where the public feels powerless to challenge or confront those in authority, leading to apathy or resignation.
3. Cognitive Dissonance: When individuals admire or support a leader, they may experience cognitive dissonance when confronted with evidence of amoral behavior. To resolve this discomfort, they might downplay or rationalize the behavior rather than reject their support for the leader.
4. Media Influence: The media plays a crucial role in shaping public perception. If media coverage downplays or frames amoral behaviors in a way that minimizes their significance, the public may be less likely to react strongly. Additionally, sensationalism or partisan reporting can skew perceptions and distract from ethical issues.
5. Lack of Accountability Mechanisms: In some political systems, there may be insufficient checks and balances to hold leaders accountable for unethical behavior. When mechanisms for accountability are weak or ineffective, populations may feel that their reactions will not lead to meaningful change.
6. Fear of Repercussions: Individuals may fear repercussions for speaking out against powerful figures, including social ostracism, professional consequences, or even legal repercussions. This fear can stifle dissent and discourage public outcry.
7. Disillusionment with Politics: A general disillusionment with political systems can lead to apathy. If people believe that all politicians are corrupt or that their voices do not matter, they may choose not to engage with or react to unethical behavior.
8. Competing Priorities: Populations often face numerous challenges and issues in their daily lives, such as economic concerns, health care, and personal responsibilities. These competing priorities can lead to a lack of focus on political ethics, as individuals may prioritize immediate concerns over abstract moral issues.
9. Social Identity and Partisanship: Strong identification with a political party or leader can lead individuals to overlook or excuse unethical behavior. Partisan loyalty can create an "us vs. them" mentality, where supporters are more likely to defend their leaders regardless of their actions.
10. Cultural Factors: In some cultures, there may be a greater tolerance for certain types of amoral behavior, especially if they are seen as necessary for achieving political or economic goals. Cultural norms can shape how populations perceive and react to ethical issues.
In summary, the interplay of psychological, social, cultural, and structural factors contributes to the phenomenon of populations often not reacting strongly against amoral behaviors in high-level positions of power. Addressing these issues requires fostering a culture of accountability, promoting civic engagement, and encouraging critical discourse around ethics in leadership.
end of AI..
So to achieve your power in numbers objective an organization equal to or superior in strength to, the existing power structures is needed? what ever organization it is must be strong enough to enable the organization sufficient inquiry and investigatory power and strong enough prosecutional and judicial powers to be effective against those who man and operate or use one or more of the amoral nation state governments?
I have repeatedly suggested humanity must organize a government of its own, one that governs (has authority over) only those who man any component of government operating within the nation state system of governments.
Such a 2nd government would need its own court system, its own legal system, its own source of revenue, and it would by its charter, empower every human on earth with authority adequate to inquire, spy on, study, audit, challenge and otherwise engage-with any activity or the behaviors of any person involved in, or with a part of, a government that operates within and as a part of the nation state system of governments. Protecting Humanity is the goal? 10,000 years of experience has shown humanity needs its own system of government to protect its own from those who man, use or abuse the nation state system whether they are its rulers or users of the system.
My thesis is that The nation state system has become a platform that attracts the greedy, the psychologically and emotionally unfit to its ranks and leadership.
From 8 billion people come the very few leaders who use the nation state governments to rule. Problem is this very few are not typical humans. They are dangerous to humanity itself and allowing them to gain access to the awesome powers vested in the nation state system grossly increases that danger.
Humanity needs to find a way to control the behaviors of those few who step into positions of power.. This need to protect humanity from the power of a nation state organization applies both to governments and to other organizations like multi national corporations, think tanks, NGOs etc.
No one should be allowed to use the nation state system to abuse or infringe human rights.
As reported by Hoarsewhisperer | May 19 2025 18:31 utc | 37 Theŕe was a huge protest in London at the weekend involving 1000+ marchers. <= so not all humans are inactive against anti human rights behavior, but the resources of the nation state organizations are sufficient to suppress the growing objection to human rights violations.
Posted by: canuck | May 19 2025 23:55 utc | 98
The question is how to we change the system so the people can get represent rather than the Elite.
<=I think the question has been answer by the above parts of this comment..
A government that governs those who govern is needed? Its constitution "human rights"is already written and universally understood?
Posted by: snake | May 20 2025 6:06 utc | 110
|
