Search results

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...

so what do you want

maybe there are no examples

also, wrt to the bit of text you're responding to, I'm sketching out a hypothetical israeli response. I'm not saying that it's likely, just that it would make more sense based on what seem like their aims (ultimate survival of their state).

the hacienda must be built

haha well, due respect as welll, but I disagree. I'm very cynical about international law -- I'm a "realist". but I also recognise that international law exists and it exists for a reason. and that reason is legitimisation. and legitimisation is the basis of authority. maybe no one cares about...

true, but, it's not the case that the us can simply dictate terms. the extent to which it can influence israel depends on aid, for sure, but also a perceived alignment of aims. in the absence of us influence are you sure that israel would be more rather than less moderate? doesnt seem obvious to...

In response to the US moving its "carrier strike groups" to the med, russia has started patrols over the black sea of jets armed with hypersonic missiles...

it's easy to see how this could lead to WWIII, but for real this time

they're obviously on Irans door step, and on russias. china too. it's a major cluster fuck of world historical proportions

I agree to some extent. what the biden admin is doing is trying to thread the needle of moderating israel whilst also not alienating them. go too far in he wrong direction and you loose your legitimacy with its public and they no longer care what you think.

I think the problem is a bit more prosaic. israel has nukes - what will it take for them to use them? war with iran, where it considers itself to be threatened existential? who is actually in charge of the nukes? Israel is obvs at a point of high pressure in which it's easy to imagine mistakes...

states dont just disappear on their basis of having or not having aid from the us. yes, international involvement was key to he birth of israel, but its not going to just neatly roll itself up and go away if its us aid is cut

Israel's nuclear weapons certainly make the situation more ... "interesting"

would you prefer that there were no hope of humanitarian assistance? of course not. but that's the situ that would prevail absent international involvement.

that's not sufficient to end the crisis, but it's also not nothing

what, after all, is preventing he total ethnic cleansing of the gaza strip? it's a combination of international public opinion and the interjections of the "international community" (of states whose opinion israel think matters)

I dont think that's quite true, actually. it seems that america has managed to moderate the response--holding off a ground invasion until humanitarian aid can be brought to bear on Gaza--and piss off Israeli public opinion, which wonders why its leaders are allowing america to shape its actions...

same story with america post 9/11. it's a strategic failure, both from their POV, and from the POV of the international system as a whole. we're all losing as a result of this.

right, but october 7th could have reset the dial to a huge extent. instead of taking advantage israel has reverted to what everyone thought was their type. they blundered and gave away pieces for no material gain.