ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

UN structure, veto power, and great‑power politics

• Several comments argue the UN Security Council veto exists to secure buy‑in from major powers; without it, they might leave and the UN could collapse.
• Others counter that this makes the UN effectively a club of great powers plus spectators, limiting “real” representation and constraining action against states like the US, Russia, or Israel.
• Historical comparisons: the League of Nations is cited as an example that lacked major‑power participation and failed; some say the UN’s partial success is mostly due to nuclear deterrence (MAD), not UN design.
• There is debate over whether the veto mitigates or worsens the problem of unenforceable ICJ rulings.

ICJ, ICC, and (lack of) enforcement

• Multiple comments note the ICJ and ICC have no independent enforcement power; compliance depends on states and especially the Security Council.
• Distinction is drawn between ICJ (state vs state) and ICC (individual criminal responsibility).
• Critics argue repeated unenforced rulings risk turning these courts into symbolic “open letters,” weakening institutional legitimacy.
• Others contend that even non‑enforceable decisions matter for norm‑setting, domestic legal challenges (e.g., arms exports), and moral clarity.
• The US “American Service-Members’ Protection Act” is highlighted as authorizing force to free US and allied personnel from ICC custody, underscoring asymmetrical power and skepticism over a “rules-based order.”

Ethics and strategy of Israel’s war in Gaza

• Many comments say global opinion has shifted to seeing Israel’s actions as disproportionate and heavily targeting civilians rather than only Hamas combatants.
• Some argue Israel’s strategy is either collective punishment or de facto ethnic cleansing; others focus on Hamas’s brutality and stated goals to justify harsh responses.
• Comparisons are drawn to the UK–IRA and Spain–ETA conflicts, with the claim that bombing civilian areas on this scale is neither effective counterterrorism nor ethically defensible.
• There is disagreement over Hamas’s popular support, its goals, and the feasibility of negotiated approaches.

Historical framing: Nakba, genocide, and ongoing dispossession

• A long subthread debates whether the 1948 Nakba constitutes genocide, ethnic cleansing, or “just” war; definitions from the Genocide Convention are invoked, with no consensus.
• Some describe the Nakba and subsequent policies as an ongoing process of displacement and disenfranchisement; opponents reject the genocide label and emphasize reciprocal violence and later Arab expulsions of Jews.
• Another line of argument stresses that the core grievance—systemic discrimination and lack of rights for Palestinians—will ensure some “Hamas-like” movement exists until those underlying conditions change.

UN, Gaza, and geopolitical interests

• A few comments suggest Gaza’s location (near Israel, Egypt, the Mediterranean, Suez) makes it strategically significant, possibly explaining tolerance for Israel’s conduct.
• Others are skeptical, asking what concrete interests make Gaza so important; no clear consensus emerges in the thread.