Comment by bbor
3 days ago
Not to sound terse, but I think the retort here is clear: morality exists, and it's important that we do our best to follow its guidance. It matters who's right and who's wrong! I absolutely agree that deciding on absolute historical blame for one "side" or another over many generations isn't helpful, but we absolutely need to litigate who's violating whose rights if we want to set things straight.
"It's all complicated and people in this part of the world are unusually tribal/violent" has been used to explain away this conflict since its inception in the US, which we have no right to do as a primary stakeholder. We (US citizens) have a stake in Gaza because the situation would be completely different without our aid, both direct (i.e. massive shipments of weapons and offering the services of our military) & indirect (i.e. using our UNSC vote to block otherwise unanimous resolutions against Israel).
To bring it all back to the one absolutely-litigated conflict in the western canon for clarity, as we so often do: was WWII about "tribalism" and both sides being prone to violence, or was it about unjustified aggressors and justified responses? Despite the nuances of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think we would all immediately endorse the latter position. Why not in this case, too?
> Why not in this case, too?
WWII involved a conflict to unconditional surrender. The equivalent for Israel and Palestine would be letting one state completely destroy the other and then rebuild it in its own image.
> ...was WWII about "tribalism" and both sides being prone to violence, or was it about unjustified aggressors and justified responses?
All of the above. One of the major powers on the winning side was the British Empire, which existed because of a global campaign of unprovoked invasions that was pretty much unprecedented. And there was Stalin, who may escape the "tribalism" label on the basis that his campaigns of political murder were so wild it is difficult to discern patterns.
If we assume for the sake of tradition and argument that the responses were justified it might have been one of the few times in a century that the British were involved in a justified response. A momentous conflict indeed! It must have been unsettling for them. And, in all seriousness, they weren't involved because it was justified. They were acting amorally and it is a coincidence they were on the justified side that time.
Morality do exists. People were loudly complain about the US behavior ever since 9/11, years after years asking when retribution was finished (which did not even ask the question if retribution was morally right).
Litigate who's violating who is unlikely to happen. A lot of people thought Obama would bring some change but rather than litigating, more people got droned and one of the worse symbols of the wars did not get closed. Setting things straight will likely only happen in hindsight after everyone responsible are long dead, and even then people will resist it as a matter of personal identity.
I do not see lasting peace coming from litigating the past, and especially not from the US.