The global consensus seems to be that Israel’s current actions have become excessive - if that’s true, I wonder where the line between legitimate and illegitimate responses to being attacked by a semi-State actor like Hamas is?
Genuine question - I don’t understand how a state would go about determining an ethical response in this circumstance (leaving aside wider positions on the nature of the I/P conflict itself).
The problem people have with Israel is not that they're killing Hamas fighters or that IDF soldiers are being killed. It's that they're killing civilians (amongst other war crimes and crimes against humanity).
It's a completely different situation.
Edit: just to flesh out my position here a bit. Civilian deaths are unavoidable in war. But the attacker _must_ take measures to prevent that as much as possible. Israel have not. In fact they've done the opposite.
There is also a deliberate propaganda effort to blur the distinction between Hamas and Palestinians. Look at every conservative news source that reports on pro-Palestinian protests. Every one of them uses the term "Pro-Hamas protestors" instead, even though you'll find very few people there who support Hamas terrorists. This is clearly deliberate.
See also the deliberate conflation of IDF = Israeli government = Israeli people = the Jewish Ethnicity = Judaism. So, thanks to propaganda, if you oppose one of them, they think you oppose them all and are antisemitic.
Israel has no ethical response because there is no ethical means by which one can maintain apartheid. History did not start on Oct 7, 2023. It’s like pondering where the line is between legitimate and illegitimate responses to the Warsaw ghetto uprising, or to Haitian revolution.
Where should we start?
When the arabs colonized the levant? or the many massacres of native jews? The wars of aggression by arabs? This conflict is awfully messy and each side has a laundry list of legitimate grievances.
The fact is the British/UN gave a bunch of land to people that wasn’t really theirs to give. Nakba happened (which is illegal to even talk about in Israel) which was already a mass genocide/forced displacement). People alive today saw this happen. Watch the documentary Tantura to see some of the horrors by early Israelis (rapes, torture, killing people and feeding them their own genitals).
The point is: throughout most of modern history “Israel” has been invading Palestine. The fact that the UN recognized Israel in 1949 doesn’t matter… because that recognition required mass displacement and horrors to actually materialize.
Arab wars etc are a consequence of this. Sure maybe Israel won some of those. But one has to accept that the very conceptualization of Israel is rooted in genocide and displacement from the start. Many (or maybe most) states throughout history were formed this way I guess … Israel had the bad luck of doing it during a time that the human rights and morality of modernity was beginning to fully form.
So, Israel can only have two actual goals in this war: either they are seeking to purge Gaza of Palestinians, or they are seeking to punish Gazans in general for the actions of a few terrorists on October 7th, eye-for-an-eye style. There is no other reasonable interpretation of this war, and the vast majority of the world's countries see it this way (as seen by the overwhelming support for all pro-Gaza resolutions at the UN, typically 150+ to 10 or less).
Now, if Israel actually wanted to eliminate the terrorist leadership that perpetrated the October 7th attack while not creating new generations of terrorists, they would have gone about this intervention in a completely different way. They would have had to work with the non-militant parts of Hamas leadership and the PLO of the West Bank and with neighboring Arab countries to bring these murderers to justice, along with sending the equivalent of police forces for taregtted operations.
For an example of how this can work, you can look at how the UK dealt with the IRA in Northern Ireland, or Spain with the Basque Country separatists. They certainly didn't start bombing Belfast or Bilbao semi-indiscriminately to weed out the terrorists there.
Of course, what I'm saying is laughably far from anything that was actually possible to imagine as an Israeli response, given the long history of repression and mutual hatred of those territories. The reality is that Israeli leadership, and a sizeable segment of the Israeli population, wants the territory of Israel to include Gaza and the West Bank, but without bringing in the huge Arab Muslim population there as full citizens with equal rights in Israel. They also want to avoid creating explicit laws officially recognizing them as the second-class citizens that they are. So, the goal of Israeli leadership is actually maintaining the status quo: people in Gaza and the West Bank (and East Jerusalem) are living as second class citizens, their land is slowly being encroached by more radical coloniats, and their anger is controlled by bombings and deprivation when needed.
High-ranking Israeli officials have openly stated this at the start of the war and throughout.
I don't really see how this could work? As far as I know, all Hamas leadership supports the Oct 7 attack. The PLO and neighboring Arab countries don't really have power in Gaza.
If mere support is a hangup, then supporters of Israel's genocidal retaliation must similarly be excluded from talks.
I speak sardonically, of course: preconditions to negotiation are rarely helpful to achieving a negotiated outcome.
Here's one example: if Israel starts by treating Palestinians as human beings equal to Israeli people, without preconditions, it would remove a lot of Hamas leverage, plus it's the right thing to do.
Then, a bilateral peace committee seeking to punish genocide perpetrators on either side, perhaps as judged by the ICJ, can be established.
Did the IRA kill around ten thousands of Brits in one day and kidnapped a few thousands (I'm adjusting to population size here) ? Did the IRA have the sworn objective to eliminate England? Did the IRA join forces with another terrorist organization and a superpower bent on destroying England to encircle England from all directions and join the war?
However, the more important issue is not to get distracted by these sort of things. We can tit-for-tat this endlessly and never get anywhere, and the only way to solve this is to move beyond that. That's what they did in NI.
If we strip away all the violence, forget who did what to who, and all of that, then the inescapable conclusion remains: the IRA was right to protest the treatment of Catholics. Even Ian Paisley later admitted as much. And similarly Hamas is ... right to protest the treatment of Palestinians. That does not mean I condone the violence, like the general rhetoric of Hamas, or anything else. It's just an acknowledgement that 1) at the core of an issue are genuine grievances, and 2) as long as these grievances exist there will always be a Hamas.
You don't need to like these facts to accept it exists. You also don't need to just shrug and do nothing about Hamas. But you DO need to actually solve the rot cause (while you're also fighting Hamas). And for decades Israel has not just flat-out refused to do almost anything, it generally has made things worse. The violence of Israel is not as spectacular as the violence of Hamas, but it absolutely exists.
The situation with Gaza is very different. There aren't perfect answers, and fifty years of being kettled under military occupation has only made everyone involved hate each other that little bit more.
Whatever the exact numbers are, it's clear that normal people have suffered unduly as a result of military action, in a way that has extended far past self defence, with documented actions that seem barely human.
A comparison to the Falklands war —as unnecessary as that was— seems perverse.
People would care less if israel was not actively supporting illegal settlers and that extremists killed ytzak rabin that was looking for peace. Or that netanyahu was on camera saying he wants to make palestinian civilians suffer as much as possible while he negociates in bad faith and doesnt respect the usa that are 'easy to manoeuver".
Its not just about hamas
The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse.
I don't know how you could make a world-level government with enforcement work given the current imbalance of powers between the top and bottom parts of the power scale.
EDIT: Why the downvotes? Is this not how the world works? I'd be interested in seeing why the disagreement.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-intern...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
However, I don't agree that this means the ICJ or ICC should just not give decisions that they can't enforce. Ultimately these courts stand as unbiased observers on the world stage, and their opinions can be used by the countries making up the UN to guide their own actions. Ideally, the world's media should also pay close attention and guide its own reporting as well based on the decisions (and rationale for those decisions).
Much like the UN's climate panel, there is real value in having a panel of domain experts present an informed, unbiased, opinion on world matters, even if they can't directly enforce anything.
Personally, I find that unfortunate. While I think the realists are mostly right, it is helpful to have international legal institutions that maintain some degree of legitimacy and power for the purpose of norm-setting.
Note that this discussion is conflating two different courts, the ICJ which is the court for disputes between nations in the UN system, and the ICC, a newer court to which parties to the Rome Statute have delegated some part of their (universal, under international law) jurisidiction over individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and, most recently, aggression.
But that's also not the reason for the veto; in fact, the veto contributes to this problem with the ICJ.
> The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse.
That's obviously an alternative, other alternatives exist, including one with a weaker but extent international body for nations to come to the table (proven, the League of Nations existed), and ones with a stronger body, with its own organic capabilities (and potentially greater independent legitimacy, e.g., by direct election of some key officers rather than appointment by member states.)
The UN isn't the only possible international federation.
The UN is probably the most successful international union because of its pragmatic approach, but it seems like most international political alliances fall apart within 100 years.
Other non-political international bodies seem to have more luck: the ITU -- the International Telecommunication Union -- has been around for 150 years. The International Labour Organization outlasted the League of Nations and became part of the UN.
UN did not prevent WWIII. It is the mere fact that nuclear weapons and MAD made the global superpowers realize that there is no winning in such war. And that a security competition and proxy wars are acceptable. But direct confrontation to be be avoided at all costs. It is not like US, Russia (probably china and others too) do respect the UN that much anyway.
If nuclear weapons existed before WWII, There is a slim chance that it would happen.
UN did not protect iraq and Ukraine from illegal invasions such that League of nations did not protect Ethiopia in the past. The mere fact that in all cases no body wanted to confront a major power invading another country far away.
Why the alternative is no united nations instead of equal and real representation of international community without bunch of countries having veto power.
The veto power was established at the founding of the UN in 1945 as a reflection of the state of the world following World War II. The major powers were given veto power to get their buy-in and participation. Without this mechanism, these powers might not have joined or supported the UN, undermining its formation and initial effectiveness.
If the veto power were removed, the major powers might feel that their core interests and national security concerns could be overridden by the majority [2], leading to their withdrawal from the UN, and significantly weakening the organization's influence and capacity to act.
There's no real authority in any of these bodies, only the appearance and illusion of legitimacy which requires buy-in from its strongest members.
[1] https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/league
[2] From above:
> Motivated by Republican concerns that the League would commit the United States to an expensive organization that would reduce the United States’ ability to defend its own interests, Lodge led the opposition to joining the League. Where Wilson and the League’s supporters saw merit in an international body that would work for peace and collective security for its members, Lodge and his supporters feared the consequences of involvement in Europe’s tangled politics, now even more complex because of the 1919 peace settlement.
And what actually prevented a global conflict after the world war II is not the UN succeeding into what League of nations, it is nuclear war and MAD doctrine. UN is currently a place so inneffective outside the general stuff that the veto countries can agree.
Again you are describing the current status que not how a real equal international community should work. Because currently when you hear that international community is behind <foo> it is usually US and some of their allies who are actual minority of humans [1]
The UN veto attempts to at least make the process transparent. A veto is like a promise "we will drop nukes on you if you try this, so don't." It's much better to find out that way, than to find out by having a nuclear bomb dropped on your head from a military jet.
I'm pretty sure that when US is vetoing Russia, it does not mean "we will drop nukes on you if you try this, so don't". Because Russian response will be of the sort "Great, try this and enjoy the fireworks over your population centers, we will hate to see the UN gone with the whole of New York".
And yet the UK has a veto, and India does not.
Also, only one of the P5 powers had nuclear weapons when the UN Charter was signed.
My dad was once judged as a terrorist for his role in resisting a racist, apartheid government. He was interestingly transformed into a senior officer of the army that spent decades indiscriminately bombing anywhere he was supposedly operating from. He was broken by the guilt of visiting villages out of starvation only to have the blood of innocent families on his hands for showing solidarity with his struggle. The people who would throw similar accusations of using human shields to justify their barbarity were now his colleagues, brothers in arms who he would spend the rest of his career fighting alongside.
One of his superiors, Nelson Mandela, had a lot to say about Palestine. The world celebrates his efforts to convince people like my father to forgive at the cost of leaving a trauma that will persist through the souls of their descendants.
This brazen denial of the reality that a fellow human will relentlessly defend is beyond clinic insanity for people who have significantly less emotional attachment to this conflict than myself. The lack of self awareness for the sake of self-preservation alone is concerning.
I'm glad all of this self indicting astro-turfing has been shared publicly. I want peace for all humanity, but I can't see anyone making a sound case for truth and reconciliation when the dust settles, and it is time for accountability.
The Gaza area is strategically extremely significant for the US and other allies as well as their enemies.
I suspect that this may be the reason why Israel is allowed to continue regardless of how many civilian casualties. And also may in some way explain some of the resilience of the fighters there despite how deadly Israel has made dissent. Iran will always fund anyone who dares poke their head up to resist. Because again, it's a very strategic position. Not only in terms of the sea but also on putting pressure on a US ally.
I will probably just be accused of being a conspiracy theorist, but if any of this is slightly true, I think it should be part of the discussion. I think the reason it is not discussed is because the US and allies don't want to admit that they could stop it if they wanted but they really don't want to because of the strategic situation.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/11/middleeast/qatar-hamas-fu...
Second of all, countries which are currently helping Israel in its slaughter have internal laws that can be invoked, through their court systems if need be, that should take this ICJ opinion into consideration when evaluating if the government should instead prohibit arms and other aid to Israel in this matter. So there is at least some glimmer of a chance for actual pressure from this ruling. It will take some time to materialize, of course.
The ICJ on the other hand is just a tribunal which orders and advises states and international organizations.
It's not its job to do that, it is a judicial not an executive body.
Unfortunately, the UN’s executive decisionmaking body is, unlike the court, fairly consistently faithless to the law where any of the pet interests of the P5 members whoe exercise vetos over it are concerned, and protecting Israel from any consequences from its lawbreaking (even where the US fully acknowledges that it is lawbreaking, as in the case of continued settlement expansion) is a pet interest of the US.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) settles legal disputes between UN member States, and it's rulings are expected to be upheld and enforced by UN States, or ultimately the UN Security Council.
The International Criminal Court is the one that can issue arrest warrants against individuals.
South Africa who has been allowed to instrumentalize the court, because it is politically convenient. A few months ago, South Africa was leaving the ICC...
"South Africa moves to quit ICC over Putin arrest warrant — then backs down" - https://www.politico.eu/article/south-africa-cyril-ramaphosa...
