"Civilization vs. Barbarism"
The International Court of Justice drops the hammer...
by Bill Bonner
Youghal, Ireland - "It was a show-down. A ‘rules-based order’…vs. firepower. Law versus brute force. Civilization vs. Barbarism. On Friday, the International Court of Justice handed down a verdict. The World Court, on Friday, ordered Israel to take action to prevent acts of genocide as it wages war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, but it stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire, Reuters reports.
Ruling on a case brought by South Africa, the Court said Israel must ensure its forces did not commit genocide and take measures to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinian civilians in the enclave. In the ruling, 15 of the 17 judges on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) panel voted for emergency measures which covered most of what South African asked for, with the notable exception of ordering a halt to Israeli military action in Gaza. Even the American judge, Joan E. Donoghue, sided with the majority.
Is this progress? The ruling was mostly ignored in the US; ‘how many divisions does the ICJ have,’ Anthony Blinken might have asked, if he had a sense of humor. But it was headline news throughout the rest of the world. It was something new. One nation is trying to prevent a slaughter by another nation by appealing to an international court.
Plausible Evidence - Whatever else it is, it is definitely the first time a rag-tag bunch of religious extremists on the edge of the civilized world – with no navy – has tried to impose a shipping blockade. And it’s the first time such an ‘act of terrorism’ (shooting at passing ships) has been done with the apparent approval of the ‘rules-based order.’ In other words, now that the ICJ has found plausible evidence of genocide, all nations are meant to do what they can to prevent it. So far, the Houthis are the only ones to take this responsibility seriously…which is in itself extraordinary.
Note that the ICJ did not call on Israel to stop its military activities…just to make sure it wasn’t committing genocide. This gives the Israelis some room for argument about what, specifically, constitutes ‘genocide,’ and whether it is guilty of it. On the other hand, it puts everyone on notice. The rules-based order is watching. Will it prevail?
The progress of civilization was largely a trend towards less brute force and more law. Less violence…more consensus, more customary rules. More win-win deals. Fewer win-lose deals. And today, most private transactions in most places are of the win-win variety. With big exceptions. Shoplifters, for example, take…they don’t give. Rapists don’t bargain either. But, in general, we expect our fellow citizens to do unto us as we would do unto them.
The really big exception is government. It claims the right to use as much violence as necessary to achieve its ends. It takes our money. It puts people in prison. It bombs and assassinates.
Death by Democide - In the US, there is a movement afoot to limit the number of firearms (466 million!) in private hands. But it’s the firearms – guns, artillery, bombs, tanks – used by government enforcers that do the most damage. Sometimes the feds use them to kill their own citizens. And sometimes they use them to kill foreigners. R.J. Rummel, in his 1994 book, “Death by Government,” calls it ‘democide.’ He put the total for the last century at 262 million dead…and the century wasn’t even over yet.
In WWII, neither side was too careful about following the rules. The Japanese were brutish and criminal (later, many were tried and condemned for war crimes) in the Far East. The Germans were out to exterminate whole groups of people – including millions of Slavs and Jews (among others) whom they regarded as inferior. The Nuremberg trials condemned, and hung, a few.
But the Allies had innocent blood on their hands too. The Soviet Union murdered millions of soldiers and non-combatants in various ways – starving prisoners of war…and executing Polish officers.
The English and Americans firebombed Dresden on three days in 1945, with 25,000 dead – almost all of them civilians. Arthur “Bomber” Harris, head of Britain’s RAF Bomber Command, called it an “act of terror.” By comparison, it took Israel three months to kill that many.
Then, in what appeared to have no military objective whatsoever, the US let loose two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (civilian targets) even as Japan was trying to surrender.
Power Over Law: Victors, however, are not prosecuted for war crimes. Instead, they are chiseled in granite and preach the virtue of following the ‘rules.’ After WWII, the US made the rules. And then interpreted them, as it pleased. Its attack on Iraq, for example – unprovoked, almost out-of-the-blue – was plainly a violation of the rules. But nobody liked Iraq. And the war was carried out with at least a reasonable respect for the rules of warfare. Civilians were not targeted. And so, the war was brought to a close with no gain for the victors, but no major confrontation with the ‘rules-based order.’
But after October 7, 2023, the US stopped mentioning rules. Its number one ally in the Middle East – Israel – began doing things that prompted worldwide outrage – killing thousands of civilians. This led South Africa to charge Israel with ‘genocide. Yemen (at least the part of it dominated by the Houthis) imposed a limited blockade on Israeli shipping. And now that the ICJ has ruled against Israel…what next? Will Israel bend to the law? Or will it ignore the court and become an outlaw? Who wins? Rules? Or firepower?
Ultimately, the political world is about power…not law. It’s firepower that calls the tune; the lawyers dance. But ‘rules’ usually are not just ‘made up.’ They reflect deeper judgments, about right and wrong, and what people should be allowed to get away with. And when other nations see an outlaw nation, they are likely to be alarmed, beefing up their own firepower… preparing for an out-of-court settlement."
No comments:
Post a Comment