3 ms·

I'm afraid the latest spate of "recognizing the state of Palestine" is not, in fact, a sign of coming relief for the people there, but rather a spigot to reliev

I'm afraid the latest spate of "recognizing the state of Palestine" is not, in fact, a sign of coming relief for the people there, but rather a spigot to relieve domestic pressure to engage in substantive actions (sanctions, pressuring the US and other suppliers of arms to engage in sanctions, let alone sending peacekeepers or no-fly zones). Regardless of how much you're personally invested in the topic, this should break the hearts of everyone who dreamed that the international community could hold each other legally accountable. Indeed, the US would rather sanction individuals at the ICJ than acknowledge any sort of legitimacy—even as our own politicians accuse Russia of engaging in "war crimes". I have no doubt that they are, in fact, I think that the evidence is quite damning. But the double standard is striking, as is the difference between the footage visible on social media and what is acknowledged when you turn on the TV or open the paper.

actionfromafar 1y ago
The international community is a worthwhile endeavour. But all other countries play at the behest of the US and now, also China. Between them, the rest have only local influence.
toast0 1y ago
> I'm afraid the latest spate of "recognizing the state of Palestine" is not, in fact, a sign of coming relief for the people there, but rather a spigot to relieve domestic pressure to engage in substantive actions (sanctions, pressuring the US and other suppliers of arms to engage in sanctions, let alone sending peacekeepers or no-fly zones). I don't think recognition as a State would really change anything. If at least one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council will veto everything that comes up, the UN won't effectively intervene in the situation. Military intervention in such a case is unlikely, unless at least one permanent member is willing to join an intervention coalition. Looking at conflicts the US has been involved in, it usually lines up around the lines with US maybe with their usual friends vs Locals or Locals and Russia and friends. The only one I found where the pattern was when France started sending arms to Nicaragua while the US was supporting the other side [1]. Unless Russia or China wants to support the Palestinians militarily, or the US decides not to no longer support Israel militarily, there's not much chance of outside intervention here. Given the outside countries can't effectively intervene, recognizing the state of Palestine at least sends a message, that maybe hopefully influences the US? [1] https://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0715/071566.html https://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0715/071566.html
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  There's not really much of a state to recognize in the first place, is there? Maybe this would have made a big difference 30 years ago, but now?
  - toast0 1y ago
    If it were recognized as a state, it would need a lot of outside help. But if there was agreement on the territory and acknowledement of its sovereignty, an effective state could be worked toward in ways that aren't feasible when under seige or even simply occupation. 30 years ago, conditions for peace and the start of a newly recognized state seemed better, yes. But the situation hasn't resolved itself by being left as-is either.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - acdha 1y ago
      It seems relevant that in the mid-90s the Israeli hard right reacted to the possibly of peaceful by engaging in some highly effective political assassinations which successfully restarted the cycle of violence, setting the stage for Netanyahu to prevent the two state solution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin
      - dotancohen 1y ago
        By that measure we could identify the decades of Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians as preventing a two-state, one-state, or any other solution.
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  China and Russia would prefer to turn Israel away from the US and more or less fortify their influence in the Middle East. Much more rewarding.
nialv7 1y ago
> break the hearts of everyone who dreamed that the international community could hold each other legally accountable. this is never going to happen. there is just no practical enforcement mechanism. laws and police works within a sovereign country because the state has the monopoly on violence, this is not true on the international stage. no country will go into war to enforce an ICC/ICJ conviction.
- bombcar 1y ago
  A country that wanted an excuse might use it.
- amdivia 1y ago
  I'm illiterate on international law, but does anything exist/is similar to the UN's peace keeping forces but for the enforcement of judicial decisions on the international scale?
energy123 1y ago
It makes it worse by reducing pressure on Hamas to surrender, increasing the duration of the war. Grotesque virtue signalling.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  Surely if a surrender takes place, it will be merely symbolic. I cannot imagine anyone can convince a population so terrorized to forgive or forget.
  - energy123 1y ago
    Japanese civilians experienced far worse in WW2, and they forgot pretty quickly. The war against the Tamil Tigers would be another case study. Once the radicalism is dealt with by force, the ratcheting of violence is reduced, and people move on.
    - fakedang 1y ago
      > Japanese civilians experienced far worse in WW2, and they forgot pretty quickly Because the vast majority of the Japanese people barely faced any kind of obstacles in the same way Palestinians are facing. Yes, they had food shortages and their wooden homes were bombed constantly to oblivion, and they suffered a couple of nuclear blasts, but that was because their history lessons teach their WW2 as something in which they were the aggressor (with Pearl Harbor, not the invasions of China and Korea). In Palestine's case, it will take much longer to wipe out that resentment. Besides, Palestinians aren't the "radicals" here.
      - energy123 1y ago
        Before Japan was defeated, their military propaganda was that they were victims of encirclement and an oil blockade, and the attack on Pearl Harbor was a justified response to this victimhood. They started teaching a different story only because the allies forced them to change their curriculum. The same process of deradicalization will be forced onto Gaza after the defeat of Hamas. And why did you overlook the Tamil Tigers case study? And why would you euphemize nuclear bombs onto civilian cities like this, as if it isn't significantly more brutal than anything the Palestinians have been subjected to? > Besides, Palestinians aren't the "radicals" here. A luxury belief that's only possible to hold because Israel is militarily dominant to the point that the radical views prevalent in Palestinian culture cannot be acted out. The Israelis know this luxury belief is factually false, that's why they are the way they are.
raxxorraxor 1y ago
In the international community the double standard was always against Israel aside maybe when it declared independence. The external enemy to distract the peasants from relevant problems. It doesn't have a lot of maturity. Perhaps the UN will go the league of nations if the current Gx hegemony loses control.
epolanski 1y ago
> Regardless of how much you're personally invested in the topic, this should break the hearts of everyone who dreamed that the international community could hold each other legally accountable. Since the mid 90s the world has proven to turn their head on the other side or pick good/bad narratives out of mere convenience. It started with the Yugoslavian wars, it absolutely exploded after 9/11 when US could straight up lie about non existing WMD and drag 10 of their allies to fight Iraq "for reasons". It confirmed itself in a countless number of conflicts nobody cared about in Africa, Middle East, Asia.
Aerbil313 1y ago
The reason the US will never go against Israel is the enormous leverage Israel has over the US administration: through the AIPAC, a money laundering operation disguised as political lobbying, a steady flow of money is ensured from the US Treasury to Israel govt. and right back to the Congress. Check the amount your Senator receives from AIPAC here: https://www.trackaipac.com/congress https://www.trackaipac.com/congress From AIPAC themselves: (https://www.aipacpac.org/ https://www.aipacpac.org/) > Being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics. > %98 of AIPAC-backed candidates won their general elections. > $70M contributed through AIPAC to support pro-Israel candidates. > We helped defeat 24 candidates who would have undermined the US-Israel relationship. Democracy anybody? Now imagine Russia had a similar organization, what would the reaction be? Yet when it's Israel, it's somehow fine. From Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC) > AIPAC was founded in 1954 by Isaiah L. Kenen, a lobbyist for the Israeli government, partly to counter negative international reactions to Israel's Qibya massacre of Palestinian villagers that year.

actionfromafar 1y ago

The international community is a worthwhile endeavour. But all other countries play at the behest of the US and now, also China. Between them, the rest have only local influence.

toast0 1y ago

> I'm afraid the latest spate of "recognizing the state of Palestine" is not, in fact, a sign of coming relief for the people there, but rather a spigot to relieve domestic pressure to engage in substantive actions (sanctions, pressuring the US and other suppliers of arms to engage in sanctions, let alone sending peacekeepers or no-fly zones). I don't think recognition as a State would really change anything. If at least one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council will veto everything that comes up, the UN won't effectively intervene in the situation. Military intervention in such a case is unlikely, unless at least one permanent member is willing to join an intervention coalition. Looking at conflicts the US has been involved in, it usually lines up around the lines with US maybe with their usual friends vs Locals or Locals and Russia and friends. The only one I found where the pattern was when France started sending arms to Nicaragua while the US was supporting the other side [1]. Unless Russia or China wants to support the Palestinians militarily, or the US decides not to no longer support Israel militarily, there's not much chance of outside intervention here. Given the outside countries can't effectively intervene, recognizing the state of Palestine at least sends a message, that maybe hopefully influences the US? [1] https://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0715/071566.html https://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0715/071566.html

MangoToupe 1y ago
There's not really much of a state to recognize in the first place, is there? Maybe this would have made a big difference 30 years ago, but now?
- toast0 1y ago
  If it were recognized as a state, it would need a lot of outside help. But if there was agreement on the territory and acknowledement of its sovereignty, an effective state could be worked toward in ways that aren't feasible when under seige or even simply occupation. 30 years ago, conditions for peace and the start of a newly recognized state seemed better, yes. But the situation hasn't resolved itself by being left as-is either.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - acdha 1y ago
    It seems relevant that in the mid-90s the Israeli hard right reacted to the possibly of peaceful by engaging in some highly effective political assassinations which successfully restarted the cycle of violence, setting the stage for Netanyahu to prevent the two state solution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      By that measure we could identify the decades of Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians as preventing a two-state, one-state, or any other solution.
raxxorraxor 1y ago
China and Russia would prefer to turn Israel away from the US and more or less fortify their influence in the Middle East. Much more rewarding.

nialv7 1y ago

> break the hearts of everyone who dreamed that the international community could hold each other legally accountable. this is never going to happen. there is just no practical enforcement mechanism. laws and police works within a sovereign country because the state has the monopoly on violence, this is not true on the international stage. no country will go into war to enforce an ICC/ICJ conviction.

bombcar 1y ago
A country that wanted an excuse might use it.
amdivia 1y ago
I'm illiterate on international law, but does anything exist/is similar to the UN's peace keeping forces but for the enforcement of judicial decisions on the international scale?

energy123 1y ago

It makes it worse by reducing pressure on Hamas to surrender, increasing the duration of the war. Grotesque virtue signalling.

MangoToupe 1y ago
Surely if a surrender takes place, it will be merely symbolic. I cannot imagine anyone can convince a population so terrorized to forgive or forget.
- energy123 1y ago
  Japanese civilians experienced far worse in WW2, and they forgot pretty quickly. The war against the Tamil Tigers would be another case study. Once the radicalism is dealt with by force, the ratcheting of violence is reduced, and people move on.
  - fakedang 1y ago
    > Japanese civilians experienced far worse in WW2, and they forgot pretty quickly Because the vast majority of the Japanese people barely faced any kind of obstacles in the same way Palestinians are facing. Yes, they had food shortages and their wooden homes were bombed constantly to oblivion, and they suffered a couple of nuclear blasts, but that was because their history lessons teach their WW2 as something in which they were the aggressor (with Pearl Harbor, not the invasions of China and Korea). In Palestine's case, it will take much longer to wipe out that resentment. Besides, Palestinians aren't the "radicals" here.
    - energy123 1y ago
      Before Japan was defeated, their military propaganda was that they were victims of encirclement and an oil blockade, and the attack on Pearl Harbor was a justified response to this victimhood. They started teaching a different story only because the allies forced them to change their curriculum. The same process of deradicalization will be forced onto Gaza after the defeat of Hamas. And why did you overlook the Tamil Tigers case study? And why would you euphemize nuclear bombs onto civilian cities like this, as if it isn't significantly more brutal than anything the Palestinians have been subjected to? > Besides, Palestinians aren't the "radicals" here. A luxury belief that's only possible to hold because Israel is militarily dominant to the point that the radical views prevalent in Palestinian culture cannot be acted out. The Israelis know this luxury belief is factually false, that's why they are the way they are.

raxxorraxor 1y ago

In the international community the double standard was always against Israel aside maybe when it declared independence. The external enemy to distract the peasants from relevant problems. It doesn't have a lot of maturity. Perhaps the UN will go the league of nations if the current Gx hegemony loses control.

epolanski 1y ago

> Regardless of how much you're personally invested in the topic, this should break the hearts of everyone who dreamed that the international community could hold each other legally accountable. Since the mid 90s the world has proven to turn their head on the other side or pick good/bad narratives out of mere convenience. It started with the Yugoslavian wars, it absolutely exploded after 9/11 when US could straight up lie about non existing WMD and drag 10 of their allies to fight Iraq "for reasons". It confirmed itself in a countless number of conflicts nobody cared about in Africa, Middle East, Asia.

Aerbil313 1y ago

The reason the US will never go against Israel is the enormous leverage Israel has over the US administration: through the AIPAC, a money laundering operation disguised as political lobbying, a steady flow of money is ensured from the US Treasury to Israel govt. and right back to the Congress. Check the amount your Senator receives from AIPAC here: https://www.trackaipac.com/congress https://www.trackaipac.com/congress From AIPAC themselves: (https://www.aipacpac.org/ https://www.aipacpac.org/) > Being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics. > %98 of AIPAC-backed candidates won their general elections. > $70M contributed through AIPAC to support pro-Israel candidates. > We helped defeat 24 candidates who would have undermined the US-Israel relationship. Democracy anybody? Now imagine Russia had a similar organization, what would the reaction be? Yet when it's Israel, it's somehow fine. From Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC) > AIPAC was founded in 1954 by Isaiah L. Kenen, a lobbyist for the Israeli government, partly to counter negative international reactions to Israel's Qibya massacre of Palestinian villagers that year.