ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

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.

During the Falklands War the discussion was around military deaths, not civilian deaths.

The problem people have with Israel is not that they're killing Hamas fighters or that IDF soldiers are being killed. It's that they're killing civilians (amongst other war crimes and crimes against humanity).

It's a completely different situation.

Edit: just to flesh out my position here a bit. Civilian deaths are unavoidable in war. But the attacker _must_ take measures to prevent that as much as possible. Israel have not. In fact they've done the opposite.

Genuine response: the “wider positions on the nature of the I/P conflict” are essential to informing the situation, and cannot be divorced from the discussion.

Israel has no ethical response because there is no ethical means by which one can maintain apartheid. History did not start on Oct 7, 2023. It’s like pondering where the line is between legitimate and illegitimate responses to the Warsaw ghetto uprising, or to Haitian revolution.

Its also simply becausz its not just about self defense.

People would care less if israel was not actively supporting illegal settlers and that extremists killed ytzak rabin that was looking for peace. Or that netanyahu was on camera saying he wants to make palestinian civilians suffer as much as possible while he negociates in bad faith and doesnt respect the usa that are 'easy to manoeuver".

Its not just about hamas

The Falklands death toll was around 900 people, only three of whom were non-combatants.

The situation with Gaza is very different. There aren't perfect answers, and fifty years of being kettled under military occupation has only made everyone involved hate each other that little bit more.

Whatever the exact numbers are, it's clear that normal people have suffered unduly as a result of military action, in a way that has extended far past self defence, with documented actions that seem barely human.

A comparison to the Falklands war —as unnecessary as that was— seems perverse.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

What exactly makes Gaza that important

> Israeli and international media have reported that Netanyahu’s plan to continue allowing aid to reach Gaza through Qatar was in the hope that it might make Hamas an effective counterweight to the PA and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. [1]

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/11/middleeast/qatar-hamas-fu...

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.

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

It's not its job to do that, it is a judicial not an executive body.

Unfortunately, the UN’s executive decisionmaking body is, unlike the court, fairly consistently faithless to the law where any of the pet interests of the P5 members whoe exercise vetos over it are concerned, and protecting Israel from any consequences from its lawbreaking (even where the US fully acknowledges that it is lawbreaking, as in the case of continued settlement expansion) is a pet interest of the US.

The ICJ can issue warrants for individuals, and the many signatories are then obliged to arrest those people should they travel. Even Kissinger had to take care where he changed planes.