Since it's been a while since we had an Israel/Palestine thread...

[vimothy]

international law was constructued in order to favor certain states and legitimise a particular order in which they sit at the apex. I previously posted a link to a really good article which goes into its history: https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii143/articles/perry-anderson-the-standard-of-civilization

 

[vimothy]

I obv don't think this is good btw

I'm just saying it's a fact and pretending otherwise is unrealistic

I agree with you, it is unrealistic

 

[vimothy]

Bc obv from Israeli leadership's POV their response makes sense, and there are clear potential historical reasons for that

but, does it actually make sense from a strategic point of view. that depends on what your ultimate end is.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

If you, again, see that for many Israeli leaders since 67 and certainly this govt, the ultimate survival or Israel is directly tied to the denial of a Palestinian state, their actions make more sense

 

[Mr. Tea]

Name me a single occasion when someone from a powerful country has been convicted of war crimes by an international criminal court

Name me a single occasion when international law and institutions have stopped a major power from going to war and/or oppressing its own citizens as it sees fit

@vimothy, surely as a realist, you can see that this is true? The US-UK invasion of Iraq was illegal, and the legal consequences have been nil. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is illegal, and the consequences have been nil. Israel routinely acts illegally, as it's doing right now, and the consequences are always nil.

The only time international law is actually applied is when a powerful country, or an organisation of powerful countries, enforces it on a much weaker country. This isn't always a bad thing - I don't shed any tears over NATO stopping Milosevic's tinpot Nazis in their tracks, for example - but that hardly strengthens the case for international law being effective, because strong countries enforcing their will over weaker countries has happened since forever, long before any such idea as 'international law' existed, and usually for much less noble causes than preventing genocide.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Europe is pebbled-dashed with Gazas.

Oh look dissenus has acquired our very own Geert Wilders

edit: ah nvm it was just an hmg sockpuppet. that checks out.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

international law was constructued in order to favor certain states and legitimise a particular order in which they sit at the apex. I previously posted a link to a really good article which goes into its history: https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii143/articles/perry-anderson-the-standard-of-civilization

I'll check out that article, but I have to imagine that has been the case for literally every international order ever created

Westphalia, Congress of Vienna, Bretton Woods, whatever

 

[vimothy]

That's more reasonable

The disconnect was saying "why didn't they do this instead? Their response seems crazy and/or counterproductive"

I was trying to draw an analogy between this and 9/11. You probably have to go back 20 pages to reach it, so understandable that you didn't see it. But consider the US. Has the US benefited from its response to 9/11? Maybe. But, might it have benefitted more from a response which drew upon the moral authority that 9/11 gave it, instead of alienating its would-be allies at the precise moment at which they were most inclined to forge together in some kind of coalition in order to deal with the attacks? I think so. And the international system itself would have benefited. Instead the opportunity to build a community was missed. Same here. On a smaller scale maybe, but the basic error is the same.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I was trying to draw an analogy between this and 9/11. You probably have to go back 20 pages to reach it, so understandable that you didn't see it. But consider the US. Has the US benefited from its response to 9/11? Maybe. But, might it have benefitted more from a response which drew upon the moral authority that 9/11 gave it, instead of alienating its would-be allies at the precise moment at which they were most inclined to forge together in some kind of coalition in order to deal with the attacks? I think so. And the international system itself would have benefited. Instead the opportunity to build a community was missed. Same here. On a smaller scale maybe, but the basic error is the same.

I don't disagree about the basic error, but it's much more realistic for the U.S. to have avoided it. That specific error is pretty much baked into Israeli policy at a like subatomic level.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Israel is certainly capable of diplomacy and pretty good at it. Look at the Sunni-Israel alliance to counter Iran.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

But moral authority thru international institutions, no

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

The other big problem with moral authority is that it would basically require everything in Gaza/WB since 67 to have not happened

That ship has sailed

They should have resisted the poisoned apple in 67 but it was too tempting

 

[vimothy]

@vimothy, surely as a realist, you can see that this is true? The US-UK invasion of Iraq was illegal, and the legal consequences have been nil. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is illegal, and the consequences have been nil. Israel routinely acts illegally, as it's doing right now, and the consequences are always nil.

The only time international law is actually applied is when a powerful country, or an organisation of powerful countries, enforces it on a much weaker country. This isn't always a bad thing - I don't shed any tears over NATO stopping Milosevic's tinpot Nazis in their tracks, for example - but that hardly strengthens the case for international law being effective, because strong countries enforcing their will over weaker countries has happened since forever, long before any such idea as 'international law' existed, and usually for much less noble causes than preventing genocide.

As I said, I agree. International law is extremely weak-sauce. I'm an IR realist. But what actually is international law? We're talking about constructing a system without a sovereign power in which we all have buy-in to a set of conventions. We can do this but its not trivial. Think about the law of the sea. With one significant exception, the law of the sea "just works. So it's not impossible. But it requires the construction of international institutions in which all participants have some degree of confidence, which is to say they agree on its legitimacy.

 

[vimothy]

The other big problem with moral authority is that it would basically require everything in Gaza/WB since 67 to have not happened

That ship has sailed

They should have resisted the poisoned apple in 67 but it was too tempting

so what are the alternatives? anarchy and might is right at the level of the state!

 

[Mr. Tea]

As I said, I agree. International law is extremely weak-sauce. I'm an IR realist. But what actually is international law? We're talking about constructing a system without a sovereign power in which we all have buy-in to a set of conventions. We can do this but its not trivial. Think about the law of the sea. With one significant exception, the law of the sea "just works. So it's not impossible. But it requires the construction of international institutions in which all participants have some degree of confidence, which is to say they agree on its legitimacy.

OK, then we agree that we agree, about the ineffectiveness of law, at any rate. But I fail to see any evidence of Israel giving half a dried shit for this 'legitimacy' you keep coming back to.

 

[vimothy]

I don't disagree about the basic error, but it's much more realistic for the U.S. to have avoided it. That specific error is pretty much baked into Israeli policy at a like subatomic level.

either way, it's purely hypothetical. I was just saying that's why it's so frustrating, we're just repeating the same errors over and over.

 

[vimothy]

OK, then we agree that we agree, about the ineffectiveness of law, at any rate. But I fail to see any evidence of Israel giving half a dried shit for this 'legitimacy' you keep coming back to.

but clearly they do. why havent they pushed gaza into the sea. its precisely bc its unjustifiable. it's *why* there's no resolution to the confilct with hamas.

 

[vimothy]

I mean, lets say you're right, fuck what people think. why shouldn't isreal simply flatten gaza? wouldn't that solve all of their problems?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

so what are the alternatives?

Some kind of two-state solution based on the pragmatic recognition that openended indefinite occupation is simply untenable

Various Israeli leaders have recognized that. Rabin, Barak, Olmert. They've never been able to make a peace deal for a variety of reasons including both domestic opposition (Rabin was literally got assassinated by it) and inability to hammer it out with a Palestinian leader (how much fault each side should be assigned for that failure depends on your POV.

This govt's policy is literally just openended occupation and gradual de facto annexation of WB which as droid said upthread, seemed to be working quite well up until Oct 7. In fact it was not working (and imo could never work) but it outwardly appeared to be.

 

[vimothy]

lets also remember that we're expecting international coordination to the climate crisis. where is this going to come from if not International institutions which apparently don't mean anything.