- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Here’s a pro-Palestinian argument I find compelling. Israelis like to talk up and down how much they love peace. They say fine, there’s settlements eating up the west bank, and a siege on the Gaza strip, and all of that, but how is that justification for violence? Peace is better than war! We love peace! Let us have peace. Palestinians find this laughable: first you kill and conquer, then with the boot comfortably on the neck you talk about peace? There can be no peace without justice.
I don’t know if I agree with the conclusion all the way, but it certainly is a compelling argument. And I find that it is compelling as it applies across the board geopolitically. Too many times “peace, peace” is used as a rallying cry in support of whatever bully already used their power to tread, create facts on the ground and declare fait accompli. You hear the same about Ukraine: how immoral it is of Zelensky and Biden to insist on war where it would be so much more peaceful of them to accept what Russia has taken by force and seek a diplomatic solution. Anyone who supports the push to undo the partial conquest of Ukraine is therefore, by definition, argued to be a bloodthirsty warmonger.
That’s not how the world works, or should work. Conquest and bloodshed is not a game of tag, for agents to escalate at their leisure and then shout “time out” when they are done extracting value from it. In accepting such a “humanitarian” point of view we maybe choose peace now for the people embroiled in the current conflict, but choose bloody war for countless innocent souls in the future who will come under the baleful eye of some geopolitical bully or robber baron who will inevitably reason, “we live in a world where I can go in, slaughter, conquer and philander, then when I’ve had enough and it seems things are turning against me, I shall weep that peace is preferable to war, and the world will listen”. This is not an endorsement of an endless cycle of revenge, but it is an endorsement of the idea that nations should be allowed to retaliate against acts of war in ways that make the original act, in retrospect, not worthwhile. In civil society we have courts for exactly this purpose.
The reason is right there in the article, but glossed over. Th US UN Ambassador complained of no inclusion of Israel’s right to defense. This is a reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter which reads:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Basic stuff.
Obviously, all those other countries can’t read and didn’t know what they were voting on. Was it all an elaborate plan to make the US look bad on the world stage? Or maybe America just throws it’s weight around and does what it wants. Then, justifies it after the fact. Kind of like your comment. Basic stuff.
Obviously every country deserves the rights in the UN Charter except for Israel is closer to what you mean.
The bombing and forced migration of a captive civilian population is not self defense. It is the textbook definition of genocide.
How would you deal with Hamas? I know what you don’t want to do, but what would you do given Hamas uses human shields. Would you try to get those shields to move?
Maybe improve the the material conditions of the average Palestinian with an influx of money to make Hamas obsolete?
This will not stop Hamas or Israel
The other option is if one side becomes extinct.
It’s the only thing that will stop both.
I would understand that Hamas is a symptom of the repression and poverty of Palestinians, and endeavour towards a diplomatic two state solution.
That is the same as saying al Qaeda was a symbol of oppression. It’s not true.
Hamas and al Qaeda are not equivalent. One is the democratically represented governent of a people. However unpalatable their motives, they must be taken seriously, because they are the only game in town. Ignoring them, as Israel and the Western governments have, will lead them resorting to violence to be heard.
Al Qaeda are fringe radicals committed to religious war. They will always choose violence, and there is no point negotiating with them.
Conflating the two is a mistake, rooted in ignorance.
Don’t put words in my mouth and try to address the article in the post.
Then why not write the article into humanitarian pause proposal?
Don’t know what you mean, I didn’t write the article.
The article refers to Article 51 of the UN charter, which I quoted. You don’t seem to think it matters. To member nations of the UN it matters very much. Why wasn’t article 51 included? Because it is a right denied by those that wrote theproposal.
I get what you’re saying now. And I think it wasn’t included because the resolution deals with humanitarian aid not _self defense _ . The fact that it wasn’t included is just an excuse for the US to vote no. Why didn’t the US introduce a new resolution with that language included? Because it gives them plausible deniability.
The US also blocked an independent investigation into the bombing of the hospital
I did not know that. I wonder why? 💭
deleted by creator
