Live data from Hacker News

ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

pbs.org

21–30 of 203 posts

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#21
post #9
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse. Why the alternative is no united nations instead of equal and real representation of international community without bunch of countries having veto power.

because the reality is, some nations have nuclear weapons and colossal economic power, and some don't.

India has nuclear weapons and more economic power than the UK.

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.

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#22

The ICJ is powerless. How does it purpose to enforce it, or anything?

> The ICJ is powerless. How does it purpose to enforce it, or anything? 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 ( eve…

The UN is simply a playground for the P5 IMO.

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#23

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. 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 r…

This is a somewhat complex question to answer, and one that can't truly be untangled from the broader history of the I/P conflict. But the base idea is this: you can't fight terrorism with bombs. Israel's stated goals in this war don't make sense: even if they could eliminate every single Hamas (military) operative, the kind of assault they are perpetrating is obviously going to give rise to a new wave of militants, probably much more embittered than Hamas is today.

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.

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#24
post #13
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse. Why the alternative is no united nations instead of equal and real representation of international community without bunch of countries having veto power.

What does that even mean? If you do something the USA doesn't like, you get nuked (metaphorically or literally). That is how it is, court or no court. What good is a group that pretends to be "real representation of international community" if the USA can still override it with nukes? 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…

Unless of course the US is talking about another countries with nukes themselves. But you are making a good case for why it is in each country best interest to acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea appears, in your argument, one of the wisest regimes in the world.

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".

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#25
post #2

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…

> 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]. Note that this discussion is conflating two different courts, the ICJ which is the…

The League of Nations existed, but was an abject failure for a number of reasons and failed to prevent WWII.

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.

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#27
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that even mean? If you do something the USA doesn't like, you get nuked (metaphorically or literally). That is how it is, court or no court. What good is a group that pretends to be "real representation of international community" if the USA can still override it with nukes? 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…

Unless of course the US is talking about another countries with nukes themselves. But you are making a good case for why it is in each country best interest to acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea appears, in your argument, one of the wisest regimes in the world. 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…

Russia also has a veto. Either one can threaten the nukes to block a proposal.

A neutral order where nobody has nukes would be better than one where everyone has nukes. You probably can't get from here to there without the complete destruction of the US state apparatus along the way, though. The Russian one too. And every other major player.

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#28

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. 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 r…

During the Falklands War the discussion was around military deaths, not civilian deaths.

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.

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#29

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. 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 r…

This is a somewhat complex question to answer, and one that can't truly be untangled from the broader history of the I/P conflict. But the base idea is this: you can't fight terrorism with bombs. Israel's stated goals in this war don't make sense: even if they could eliminate every single Hamas (military) operative, the kind of assault they are perpetrating is obviously going to give rise to a new wave of militants,…

> or they are seeking to punish Gazans in general for the actions of a few terrorists on October 7th, eye-for-an-eye style

High-ranking Israeli officials have openly stated this at the start of the war and throughout.

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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]. Note that this discussion is conflating two different courts, the ICJ which is the…

The League of Nations existed, but was an abject failure for a number of reasons and failed to prevent WWII. 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 a…

> The League of Nations existed, but was an abject failure for a number of reasons and failed to prevent WWII.

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.

Post reply on HN