The destruction of Palestine is breaking the world | Moustafa Bayoumi
www.theguardian.com
The rules of the institutions that define our lives bend like reeds when it comes to Israel – so much that the whole global order is on the verge of collapse

Israel’s war in Gaza is chipping away at so much of what we – in the United States but also internationally – had agreed upon as acceptable, from the rules governing our freedom of speech to the very laws of armed conflict. It seems no exaggeration to say that the foundation of the international order of the last 77 years is threatened by this change in the obligations governing our legal and political responsibilities to each other.

  • vga@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    411·
    10 hours ago

    If we consider UN as being the main arbitrator on who gets to launch a war, then to mention a few instances…

    1950: North Korea illegally attacks South Korea.

    1956: Soviet Union illegally invades Hungary.

    1956: Israel / France / UK illegally invade Egypt. All invaders withdraw after UN condemnation and international pressure.

    1964: USA illegally escalates Vietnam War.

    1967: Israel launches the Six-Day War, illegality debated.

    1968: Soviet Union illegally invades Czechoslovakia.

    1973: Egypt and Syria attack Israel.

    1974: Turkey illegally invades Cyprus.

    1978: Vietnam illegally invades Cambodia.

    1979: Soviet Union illegally invades Afghanistan.

    1982: Israel illegally invades Libanon.

    1983: USA illegally invades Grenada.

    1989: USA illegally invades Panama.

    1990: Iraq illegally invades Kuwait. Got their ass kicked though so that worked out fine.

    1999: NATO illegally bombs Yugoslavia.

    2003: US and UK illegally invade Iraq.

    2008: Russia illegally invades Georgia.

    2014: Russia illegally invades and annexes Crimea.

    2015: Saudi-Arabia illegally invades Yemen.

    2022: Russia illegally invades Ukraine.

    I probably forgot a few. No ill meaning meant, just missing knowledge.

    • rumimevlevi@lemmings.worldEnglish
      3·
      4 hours ago

      Look at how you called them all illegsl except isrsel 6 day war thst was illegal no debate sbout it

      “he Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. - Menachem Begin

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldEnglish
      113·
      9 hours ago

      You really have to do whataboutism on every post concerning Israel.

      1967: Israel launches the Six-Day War, illegality debated.

      Nice how you question the illegality of Israel doing war crimes.

        • rumimevlevi@lemmings.worldEnglish
          1·
          3 hours ago

          Resolution 242: On November 22, 1967, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242

          • The “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.”

          • The need for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied during the conflict.

          They attacked on a Monday, knowing that on Wednesday the Egyptian vice-president would arrive in Washington to talk about re-opening the Strait of Tiran. We might not have succeeded in getting Egypt to reopen the strait, but it was a real possibility.” -  Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State of that time

          “The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” -  Menachem Begin

          So there was no eminent security risk, the attack was not proportional and Israel kept the west bank and east Jerusalem violating the need for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied during the conflict

      • IhaveCrabs111@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        7 hours ago

        I’m still not convinced about criticism of whataboutism being an actual defence. I’ve heard the argument that it doesn’t make the original criticism any less valid but to me it does. It’s more of a go fuck off together and be shit somewhere else rather than a let’s focus on this one point only purely because it was brought up before the other. And purely because it was brought up first there is not allowed to be any mention of any hypocrisy?