Oh, absolutely. The West’s stance is completely flawless, especially when you look at how beautifully those heralded liberal values of "individual rights and freedoms" have been applied in Gaza. It turns out that "universal human rights" actually come with a very selective terms-and-conditions sheet. The Western commitment to international law and the "rules-based order" has been on spectacular display: selective empathy: The right to life and liberty is strictly championed, provided the individuals holding those rights fit the correct geopolitical demographic. Weaponized aid: Championing human dignity apparently includes funding and shipping the exact munitions that level hospitals and neighborhoods, followed by a deeply concerned press conference about the lack of humanitarian aid. Freedom of expression (with boundaries): Western institutions love free speech, until students and academics use that free speech to protest the slaughter of civilians. Then, those liberal values quickly pivot to police crackdowns and institutional censorship. So yes, the Western perspective is totally vindicated. Nothing says "we hold the moral high ground on human rights" quite like watching a population starve in real-time on social media while debating whether a ceasefire is "premature."
Create an account or sign in to comment