18 ms·

ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

67 points by goatsneez 2y ago

mmastrac 2y ago
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. 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-international-criminal-court-arrest-warrant-rcna85396 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-intern... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
- bluish29 2y ago
  > 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.
  - mmastrac 2y ago
    It's just how things work. The League of Nations failed largely because it lacked the participation and support of major powers. The United States, despite being a principal architect of the League, never joined [1]. This lack of participation undermined the its legitimacy and effectiveness. 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 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.
    - bluish29 2y ago
      You are contradicting yourself. If the world power participation in UN is vital to its role but at the same time nothing outside the conflicted power between them then why do you think UN is more than a club of world power extended to include some people from thr outside? 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]
      - mmastrac 2y ago
        I don't think I'm contradicting myself - I think the UN is a mutually-beneficial, shared illusion that works only when the major powers that go into it believe that it works. The most cynical view of the UN is that it is a club of the five major members that happens to include the rest of the world, yeah. But the power of the shared illusion gives it broad acceptance. And even if enforcement is uneven, the broad acceptance of the UN's role provides it with a degree of moral and political authority.
      - runarberg 2y ago
        > 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. This is wishful thinking and a history revisionism. Mathematically speaking MAD will always result in a nuclear Armageddon. People knew that and worked with the UN to prevent proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and escalation of the Nuclear Arms buildup. Without the UN it is hard to see something like the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty or the Non-Proliferation Treaty striking balance to the Nuclear Arms race and preventing a nuclear Armageddon.
        candiodari 2y ago
        It was the US starting and pushing the comprehensive test ban treaty, not the UN. The UN didn't even try until the US successfully pushed it for decades. And STILL, all relevant negotiations are conducted by the US, the relevant backing organization is thoroughly US. It's physically in the US. It's staffed by US people. It's really more or less a branch of the US military, and it's equipment is almost exclusively on US military bases. Also, the comprehensive test ban treaty is based on mathematical research. Yes, seriously. Who did that research? The US, and they shared it, which changed the calculus of nuclear weapons and allowed the treaty to happen. In fact, a US mathematician is famous for ignoring the US president in an actual meeting with him while doing this research. Nuclear nonproliferation is a pure US project, that, if we're being honest, does not even really have the support of the US's closest allies. All countries WANT nuclear weapons, and while they cooperate with nonproliferation, they maintain nuclear weapons. That EVEN goes for France and the UK. Hell, even fucking Belgium tried (and, one might add, only stopped once they were absolutely sure they could do it). And, let's face facts: Belgium, along with 100 other countries will try to acquire nuclear weapons again if the US guarantees are violated. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, for example. Likely, at least Japan and China are maintaining programs that at the drop of a hat, in months, can produce working nuclear weapons. And I'd be AMAZED if both of those countries aren't, at minimum, further along than Iran is. Hell, my money is that at least those two have working nuclear weapons ready. Untested, but ready. Frankly, I'd be amazed if Belgium and even Canada don't have the core of a nuclear weapon ready stashed away ready somewhere (because both countries have the infrastructure needed to produce Nuclear weapons, and they have that infrastructure IN OPERATION (for other reasons, and yes, both countries have valid reasons). Yes they say they're not using it for weapons, but the idea that they're not at minimum "at the ready" is completely absurd to me) What did the UN do? The UN tried to solve the Nepal situation. Nepal doesn't exist anymore. The UN tried to solve the DRC situation. It didn't work, and hundreds of thousands to millions were massacred as a result. The UN tried to solve the Iran/ISIS/Lebanon/Syria/... conflicts. Eventually the only thing that was solved was the US using it's remaining military force in Iraq to destroy ISIS. The other conflicts are still simmering. Nothing was solved by the UN. The UN tried to solve the Yemen situation. Nothing was solved. The UN tried to solve Somalia. The people they tried to protect are no longer there (and most are dead). The UN tried to solve the Israel situation. You are constantly complaining about what happened, which can be summarized as Israel successfully protected itself with US aid. The UN, the same people, but under the name "League of Nations" tried to prevent WW2. Germany and the US still claim their actions CAUSED WW2. I'm not sure it's 100% true, but they make a pretty good case. Besides, it wouldn't even matter, since the UN itself is a US and Israeli project. It would fall apart, even now, without the US. Oh and you neglect to mention "the other MAD", that also is provided by the US: the guarantee that if one country attacks another, the attacked country will receive at minimum humanitarian aid, likely military aid from the US, and sometimes direct military intervention by the US. This MAD is also a critical component of post-war peace, because many countries would win military conflicts against at least some their neighbors, and where it doesn't work (e.g. Russia) ... we see constant wars. Your case that countries worldwide are depending and trusting the UN to protect them from military conflict is absurd.
  - mbonnet 2y ago
    because the reality is, some nations have nuclear weapons and colossal economic power, and some don't.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      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.
      - linearrust 2y ago
        The UN was created when india was a subservient colony of britain. When veto powers were being given out, india didn't exist as an independent country. That's why the UK has veto power while india doesn't. There definitely needs to be a rebalancing of power within the UN but none of the P5 want their power diluted. And they have the all powerful veto power.
        ImJamal 2y ago
        We've switched who has veto powers before. Soviet Union to Russia and the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China. There is no reason we can't replace another government.
        Thiez 2y ago
        Both of those cases involve the dissolution of the state holding the veto power. While dissolving the UK would be hilarious, I imagine they would veto it.
        dragonwriter 2y ago
        > Both of those cases involve the dissolution of the state holding the veto power The Republic of China did not dissolve.
        2y ago
  - immibis 2y ago
    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 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.
    - bluish29 2y ago
      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".
      - immibis 2y ago
        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.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  I think you're right about the reason for the veto powers of the world's super powers at the UN Security Council. It's a pragmatic, though unjust, way of ensuring that they participate in the UN at all. Unfortunately, even so, they often ignore UN Security Council decisions even if they happen to pass - like the USA recently allowing the Israel-Gaza ceasefire resolution to pass, then immediately turning around and absurdly claiming that a UN security council resolution is non-binding. So even like, it's unclear how much the system actually works. 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.
  - immibis 2y ago
    Speaking of climate, today Germany is claiming that climate protestors must be punished like the mafia: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/23/alarm-as-german-climate-activists-charged-with-forming-a-criminal-organisation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/23/...
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      Ah yes, the German Greens, truly the party of environmentalism... I would be almost shocked if I hadn't long become accustomed to my own country's extreme disconnect between the claimed doctrine of each party and their actual politics.
  - ronjobber 2y ago
    The reason ICJ and ICC should be careful about giving decisions they cannot enforce is because over time it can undermine their credibility. Eventually you end up with these international bodies writing the equivalence of "open letters", which is fine I guess... but if those actions have no effect on outcomes it really starts to undermine the Institutionalist side of IR theory. 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.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > 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 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.
  - mmastrac 2y ago
    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.
    - bluish29 2y ago
      > 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.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
markus_zhang 2y ago
The ICJ is powerless. How does it purpose to enforce it, or anything?
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  First of all, the mere existence of this ruling should be a guiding star for discourse on the topic. It's unacceptable for so much discourse to claim that there Israel is "just defending itself" when there are actual independent legal experts, with no hidden motives, pouring over the details and concluding that they are slaughtering civilians. So even if no enforcement of any kind happened, it would still be worth it to get an informed and unbiased opinion like this out there. 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.
  - immibis 2y ago
    They will simply claim everyone involved is a Hamas operative, there is no genocide in Ba Sing Se, and they are still just defending themselves. I also remind you that the USA has a law on the books authorizing the invasion of any country which attempts to enforce any international court order which the USA disagrees with.
    - runarberg 2y ago
      I was under the impression that that was just the ICC, as a) USA is not a member of the Rome Statute, b) the ICC prosecutes individuals, not state actors, and c) USA has a really extreme policy of protecting their citizens—even guilty those guilty of crimes—from foreign jurisdictions. The ICJ on the other hand is just a tribunal which orders and advises states and international organizations.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
implements 2y ago
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 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).
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  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.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
[flagged]
- nolongerthere 2y ago
  Looks like the ICJ tacked on a PS that Hamas should release them too. So I guess Israel should comply when Hamas does? sound like a plan?
  - genman 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - GordonS 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - genman 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - adhamsalama 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - adhamsalama 2y ago
    Why not the opposite?
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  There have been several proposed deals where Hamas would return the hostages. Israel has not even entertained a single one of them. In fact, the IDF have been busy killing these hostages along with all the other civilians that they are, of course, trying not to kill when dropping dumb bombs on schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, and nurseries.
genman 2y ago
[flagged]
- GordonS 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - genman 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - GordonS 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - genman 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - runarberg 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - genman 2y ago
        [flagged]
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  Hamas is a terrorist organization, but not a genocidal one. Not even their worst actions have ever risen close to genocide.
  - genman 2y ago
    [flagged]
nolongerthere 2y ago
[flagged]
- GordonS 2y ago
  [flagged]
ilaksh 2y ago
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. 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.
- sfe22 2y ago
  What exactly makes Gaza that important
  - ilaksh 2y ago
    It's location in relation to Israel, the Mediterranean, Egypt, Suez canal, etc.
    - rcpt 2y ago
      That doesn't really answer it? I have yet to see how this little strip of land is so valuable to our interests
      - lysp 2y ago
        You need to look offshore.
        rcpt 2y ago
youngtilted 2y ago
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? 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.
oissla 2y ago
[flagged]
- oissla 2y ago
  "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity."
  - oissla 2y ago
    [flagged]

67 points by goatsneez 2y ago

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. 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-international-criminal-court-arrest-warrant-rcna85396 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-intern... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

bluish29 2y ago
> 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.
- mmastrac 2y ago
  It's just how things work. The League of Nations failed largely because it lacked the participation and support of major powers. The United States, despite being a principal architect of the League, never joined [1]. This lack of participation undermined the its legitimacy and effectiveness. 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 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.
  - bluish29 2y ago
    You are contradicting yourself. If the world power participation in UN is vital to its role but at the same time nothing outside the conflicted power between them then why do you think UN is more than a club of world power extended to include some people from thr outside? 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]
    - mmastrac 2y ago
      I don't think I'm contradicting myself - I think the UN is a mutually-beneficial, shared illusion that works only when the major powers that go into it believe that it works. The most cynical view of the UN is that it is a club of the five major members that happens to include the rest of the world, yeah. But the power of the shared illusion gives it broad acceptance. And even if enforcement is uneven, the broad acceptance of the UN's role provides it with a degree of moral and political authority.
    - runarberg 2y ago
      > 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. This is wishful thinking and a history revisionism. Mathematically speaking MAD will always result in a nuclear Armageddon. People knew that and worked with the UN to prevent proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and escalation of the Nuclear Arms buildup. Without the UN it is hard to see something like the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty or the Non-Proliferation Treaty striking balance to the Nuclear Arms race and preventing a nuclear Armageddon.
      - candiodari 2y ago
        It was the US starting and pushing the comprehensive test ban treaty, not the UN. The UN didn't even try until the US successfully pushed it for decades. And STILL, all relevant negotiations are conducted by the US, the relevant backing organization is thoroughly US. It's physically in the US. It's staffed by US people. It's really more or less a branch of the US military, and it's equipment is almost exclusively on US military bases. Also, the comprehensive test ban treaty is based on mathematical research. Yes, seriously. Who did that research? The US, and they shared it, which changed the calculus of nuclear weapons and allowed the treaty to happen. In fact, a US mathematician is famous for ignoring the US president in an actual meeting with him while doing this research. Nuclear nonproliferation is a pure US project, that, if we're being honest, does not even really have the support of the US's closest allies. All countries WANT nuclear weapons, and while they cooperate with nonproliferation, they maintain nuclear weapons. That EVEN goes for France and the UK. Hell, even fucking Belgium tried (and, one might add, only stopped once they were absolutely sure they could do it). And, let's face facts: Belgium, along with 100 other countries will try to acquire nuclear weapons again if the US guarantees are violated. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, for example. Likely, at least Japan and China are maintaining programs that at the drop of a hat, in months, can produce working nuclear weapons. And I'd be AMAZED if both of those countries aren't, at minimum, further along than Iran is. Hell, my money is that at least those two have working nuclear weapons ready. Untested, but ready. Frankly, I'd be amazed if Belgium and even Canada don't have the core of a nuclear weapon ready stashed away ready somewhere (because both countries have the infrastructure needed to produce Nuclear weapons, and they have that infrastructure IN OPERATION (for other reasons, and yes, both countries have valid reasons). Yes they say they're not using it for weapons, but the idea that they're not at minimum "at the ready" is completely absurd to me) What did the UN do? The UN tried to solve the Nepal situation. Nepal doesn't exist anymore. The UN tried to solve the DRC situation. It didn't work, and hundreds of thousands to millions were massacred as a result. The UN tried to solve the Iran/ISIS/Lebanon/Syria/... conflicts. Eventually the only thing that was solved was the US using it's remaining military force in Iraq to destroy ISIS. The other conflicts are still simmering. Nothing was solved by the UN. The UN tried to solve the Yemen situation. Nothing was solved. The UN tried to solve Somalia. The people they tried to protect are no longer there (and most are dead). The UN tried to solve the Israel situation. You are constantly complaining about what happened, which can be summarized as Israel successfully protected itself with US aid. The UN, the same people, but under the name "League of Nations" tried to prevent WW2. Germany and the US still claim their actions CAUSED WW2. I'm not sure it's 100% true, but they make a pretty good case. Besides, it wouldn't even matter, since the UN itself is a US and Israeli project. It would fall apart, even now, without the US. Oh and you neglect to mention "the other MAD", that also is provided by the US: the guarantee that if one country attacks another, the attacked country will receive at minimum humanitarian aid, likely military aid from the US, and sometimes direct military intervention by the US. This MAD is also a critical component of post-war peace, because many countries would win military conflicts against at least some their neighbors, and where it doesn't work (e.g. Russia) ... we see constant wars. Your case that countries worldwide are depending and trusting the UN to protect them from military conflict is absurd.
- mbonnet 2y ago
  because the reality is, some nations have nuclear weapons and colossal economic power, and some don't.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    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.
    - linearrust 2y ago
      The UN was created when india was a subservient colony of britain. When veto powers were being given out, india didn't exist as an independent country. That's why the UK has veto power while india doesn't. There definitely needs to be a rebalancing of power within the UN but none of the P5 want their power diluted. And they have the all powerful veto power.
      - ImJamal 2y ago
        We've switched who has veto powers before. Soviet Union to Russia and the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China. There is no reason we can't replace another government.
        Thiez 2y ago
        Both of those cases involve the dissolution of the state holding the veto power. While dissolving the UK would be hilarious, I imagine they would veto it.
        dragonwriter 2y ago
        > Both of those cases involve the dissolution of the state holding the veto power The Republic of China did not dissolve.
        2y ago
- immibis 2y ago
  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 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.
  - bluish29 2y ago
    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".
    - immibis 2y ago
      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.
tsimionescu 2y ago
I think you're right about the reason for the veto powers of the world's super powers at the UN Security Council. It's a pragmatic, though unjust, way of ensuring that they participate in the UN at all. Unfortunately, even so, they often ignore UN Security Council decisions even if they happen to pass - like the USA recently allowing the Israel-Gaza ceasefire resolution to pass, then immediately turning around and absurdly claiming that a UN security council resolution is non-binding. So even like, it's unclear how much the system actually works. 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.
- immibis 2y ago
  Speaking of climate, today Germany is claiming that climate protestors must be punished like the mafia: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/23/alarm-as-german-climate-activists-charged-with-forming-a-criminal-organisation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/23/...
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    Ah yes, the German Greens, truly the party of environmentalism... I would be almost shocked if I hadn't long become accustomed to my own country's extreme disconnect between the claimed doctrine of each party and their actual politics.
- ronjobber 2y ago
  The reason ICJ and ICC should be careful about giving decisions they cannot enforce is because over time it can undermine their credibility. Eventually you end up with these international bodies writing the equivalence of "open letters", which is fine I guess... but if those actions have no effect on outcomes it really starts to undermine the Institutionalist side of IR theory. 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.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> 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 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.
- mmastrac 2y ago
  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.
  - bluish29 2y ago
    > 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.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

markus_zhang 2y ago

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

tsimionescu 2y ago
First of all, the mere existence of this ruling should be a guiding star for discourse on the topic. It's unacceptable for so much discourse to claim that there Israel is "just defending itself" when there are actual independent legal experts, with no hidden motives, pouring over the details and concluding that they are slaughtering civilians. So even if no enforcement of any kind happened, it would still be worth it to get an informed and unbiased opinion like this out there. 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.
- immibis 2y ago
  They will simply claim everyone involved is a Hamas operative, there is no genocide in Ba Sing Se, and they are still just defending themselves. I also remind you that the USA has a law on the books authorizing the invasion of any country which attempts to enforce any international court order which the USA disagrees with.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    I was under the impression that that was just the ICC, as a) USA is not a member of the Rome Statute, b) the ICC prosecutes individuals, not state actors, and c) USA has a really extreme policy of protecting their citizens—even guilty those guilty of crimes—from foreign jurisdictions. The ICJ on the other hand is just a tribunal which orders and advises states and international organizations.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago

implements 2y ago

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 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).

tsimionescu 2y ago
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.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

[flagged]

nolongerthere 2y ago
Looks like the ICJ tacked on a PS that Hamas should release them too. So I guess Israel should comply when Hamas does? sound like a plan?
- genman 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - GordonS 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - genman 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - adhamsalama 2y ago
    [flagged]
- adhamsalama 2y ago
  Why not the opposite?
tsimionescu 2y ago
There have been several proposed deals where Hamas would return the hostages. Israel has not even entertained a single one of them. In fact, the IDF have been busy killing these hostages along with all the other civilians that they are, of course, trying not to kill when dropping dumb bombs on schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, and nurseries.

genman 2y ago

[flagged]

GordonS 2y ago
[flagged]
- genman 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - GordonS 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - genman 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - runarberg 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - genman 2y ago
      [flagged]
tsimionescu 2y ago
Hamas is a terrorist organization, but not a genocidal one. Not even their worst actions have ever risen close to genocide.
- genman 2y ago
  [flagged]

nolongerthere 2y ago

[flagged]

GordonS 2y ago
[flagged]

ilaksh 2y ago

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. 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.

sfe22 2y ago
What exactly makes Gaza that important
- ilaksh 2y ago
  It's location in relation to Israel, the Mediterranean, Egypt, Suez canal, etc.
  - rcpt 2y ago
    That doesn't really answer it? I have yet to see how this little strip of land is so valuable to our interests
    - lysp 2y ago
      You need to look offshore.
      - rcpt 2y ago

youngtilted 2y ago

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? 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.

oissla 2y ago

[flagged]

oissla 2y ago
"Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity."
- oissla 2y ago
  [flagged]