During the Falklands War there were discussions in British political circles about what death toll would be unacceptable to liberate 1,800 people from Argentine occupation and rule - a calculus on the value of human life vs geopolitical concerns, I guess.<p>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?<p>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).
One of the interesting reasons that the UN Security Council has vetoes is to prevent this sort of situation with Israel and Russia where the court appears powerless because the powers simply ignore the rulings, or retaliate against the court as Russia did this week [1] and the US would do so if any of their members were charged [2]. The UN's organizational structure reflects the (unfair but real) power imbalances in the world, and that structure ensures that it continues to exist.<p>The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse.<p>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.<p>EDIT: Why the downvotes? Is this not how the world works? I'd be interested in seeing why the disagreement.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-international-criminal-court-arrest-warrant-rcna85396" rel="nofollow">https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-intern...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...</a>
Forced illegal settlements are also a war crime, one of very few actions that even the US has condemned along with the wider international community. Can one justify over 50 years of belligerence? Does Hamas operate in the West bank? Remind me how long Hamas has been around to use human shields in a region governed by a separate authority?<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
I have always suspected that part of the explanation for why these heinous things are occurring without any actual consequences is the larger military strategic situation. And I think that aspect of it being left out of the discussion is not helping.<p>The Gaza area is strategically extremely significant for the US and other allies as well as their enemies.<p>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.<p>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.