I don’t think many people are saying that the morality of a genocide is complicated, but I think plenty of people ARE saying that classifying a genocide when no two look alike and both sides of the current conflict obfuscate and lie about the facts is complicated. A lot of people are saying that responding to a genocide occurring within an entrenched conflict in one of the most volatile regions on the globe where nearly every major world power has involvement and interests IS complicated. Many of those saying that international diplomacy is complicated understand that when the most important allies of a nation violating human rights pull their support too hard or too fast that that nation is likely to accelerate its plans to try and accomplish its goals before further repercussions prevent it.
We certainly shouldn’t let these complexities prevent us from speaking out regarding what we feel is right, but pretending they don’t exist only serves the most cynical and self-serving of political interests. Resolving human rights abuses is always more complicated than slapping a genocide or not genocide label on the situation and saying “genocide bad” or “not genocide okay.”
Let me break it down. If, tomorrow, Uncle Sam grabbed Nettanyahu by the balls and said “stop it or I’m going to fucking give you the Saddam treatment”, they’d listen. Honest to goodness, Benny knows as well as anyone that we could hand deliver a drone strike to his testicles with millimeter precision within three minutes of deciding to do so. And while I recognize any of those would be political suicide, I also thing that, realistically, I think it would take far, far less than that to bring this operation to a standstill.
That may be so, but it doesn’t stop it from being a complicated situation. What happens to US international relations when the rest of their allies come to the conclusion that they’ll be met with bombs and threats when they don’t respond to requests the way the US wants? If the US does far, far less, how much less is enough and how much is too much? What happens when Iran, its proxies, and other adversaries of Israel realize that its biggest ally no longer has its back?
I’m not telling you that calling for an end to the bloodshed is wrong, it’s not. I’m not telling you that the United States and the international community are doing enough to pressure Israel to respect human rights. I don’t think anyone knows enough of what’s going on behind the scenes to say for certain that enough is being done and what’s going on in front of our eyes says that more is required. What I am saying is that complex, world issues are complex and we cannot have a full understanding of them, nor a productive discussion about them unless we acknowledge their complexities.
Edit: I do appreciate the breakdown of how a threat works though.
We already do make threats (of varying kinds, usually financial) to control our allies, as well as our enemies. We’ve caused whole ass revolutions because fruit companies stood to lose money. The US plays dirty whenever we want and lose zero sleep about it, and I see no reason why stopping genocide should suddenly be a case for doing everything above board. I mean, really, I’m not buying it that the same country that said “fuck ur laws lol” and teabagged Osama Bin Ladin in the middle of the night and has declared itself beyond the reach of the ICC is suddenly tied up by international laws and relationships and is just simply helpless to do anything but build a dock that can’t even float.
I don’t think many people are saying that the morality of a genocide is complicated, but I think plenty of people ARE saying that classifying a genocide when no two look alike and both sides of the current conflict obfuscate and lie about the facts is complicated. A lot of people are saying that responding to a genocide occurring within an entrenched conflict in one of the most volatile regions on the globe where nearly every major world power has involvement and interests IS complicated. Many of those saying that international diplomacy is complicated understand that when the most important allies of a nation violating human rights pull their support too hard or too fast that that nation is likely to accelerate its plans to try and accomplish its goals before further repercussions prevent it.
We certainly shouldn’t let these complexities prevent us from speaking out regarding what we feel is right, but pretending they don’t exist only serves the most cynical and self-serving of political interests. Resolving human rights abuses is always more complicated than slapping a genocide or not genocide label on the situation and saying “genocide bad” or “not genocide okay.”
Let me break it down. If, tomorrow, Uncle Sam grabbed Nettanyahu by the balls and said “stop it or I’m going to fucking give you the Saddam treatment”, they’d listen. Honest to goodness, Benny knows as well as anyone that we could hand deliver a drone strike to his testicles with millimeter precision within three minutes of deciding to do so. And while I recognize any of those would be political suicide, I also thing that, realistically, I think it would take far, far less than that to bring this operation to a standstill.
That may be so, but it doesn’t stop it from being a complicated situation. What happens to US international relations when the rest of their allies come to the conclusion that they’ll be met with bombs and threats when they don’t respond to requests the way the US wants? If the US does far, far less, how much less is enough and how much is too much? What happens when Iran, its proxies, and other adversaries of Israel realize that its biggest ally no longer has its back?
I’m not telling you that calling for an end to the bloodshed is wrong, it’s not. I’m not telling you that the United States and the international community are doing enough to pressure Israel to respect human rights. I don’t think anyone knows enough of what’s going on behind the scenes to say for certain that enough is being done and what’s going on in front of our eyes says that more is required. What I am saying is that complex, world issues are complex and we cannot have a full understanding of them, nor a productive discussion about them unless we acknowledge their complexities.
Edit: I do appreciate the breakdown of how a threat works though.
Someone who stands outside of ideology and thinks.
Thank you.
_ /\ _
We already do make threats (of varying kinds, usually financial) to control our allies, as well as our enemies. We’ve caused whole ass revolutions because fruit companies stood to lose money. The US plays dirty whenever we want and lose zero sleep about it, and I see no reason why stopping genocide should suddenly be a case for doing everything above board. I mean, really, I’m not buying it that the same country that said “fuck ur laws lol” and teabagged Osama Bin Ladin in the middle of the night and has declared itself beyond the reach of the ICC is suddenly tied up by international laws and relationships and is just simply helpless to do anything but build a dock that can’t even float.