President Joe Biden condemned by the move by the International Criminal Court to seek arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, saying that there was “no equivalence” between that country’s actions and those of Hamas. Earlier today, the ICC issued a legal report in which a panel of international law experts supported a prosecutor’s conclusion that there […]
Hi. Old soldier here. You’re wrong. Go home and think about your life choices. The entire idea of war crimes was created by soldiers. Violating those laws isn’t some kind of alpha power move. It’s weak and cowardly. If they’re so much stronger then they should be able to protect the civilians. They either cannot and are lying, or will not and deserve the violence they receive.
Hey guys, this dudes a soldier so he must be super well educated in international relations!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)
You saw the “no central authority” line and thought this would be a good idea didn’t you? But no. Rules of war have existed for thousands of years. Because even ancient soldiers and their countries realized you still had to live with your neighbors after you fight. Realism does not preclude rules and agreements. It just means countries are going to look after their self interest first. This is what you get for citing Wikipedia on something you go to college for. (I actually did by the way. The GI Bill paid for studies in international politics)
There’s also Liberalism, Rationalism, and Constructivism. But for some reason all the edgy kids go straight for Realism. The truth is the world order is made with a mix of these ideas. We have the UN, a liberal institution. The UN cannot act without the Security Council, a realist institution. But no, nobody wants to hear that. It’s all got to be that sexy Realism, because then they’re free to do whatever they want.
Well guess what? That never worked. The last pure realist died of a stroke in 1953. Even GW Bush called up NATO for Afghanistan and put together a coalition for Iraq. For all his bluster about acting unilaterally he wasn’t a pure realist.
I don’t have much time to continue this conversation with you (and I’ll ignore the attempts at belittling my stance), but I will just add that Liberalism, Idealism, etc are really only relevant when the other side(s) are also abiding by those norms. As soon as one side pursues Realist actions (like Bibi, Hamas, or Putin), then the only response is to match their force.
Also:
Just to try to clarify my reasoning on even bringing this up - I’m not trying to justify individual soldiers’ actions in a specific conflict. I’m trying to make it clear that in state vs. state conflicts, what you would typically consider to be norms go out the window as each will prioritize their security and power. Thus, when one that is weaker attacks another that is stronger, you should expect an overwhelming response
That’s not true at all. In a Counter Insurgency environment against a group like HAMAS it’s even more important not to match them. You kill them by killing their ideas. And you do that by being demonstrably better so they can’t recruit anymore.
And with Russia you don’t do it either. You want the prisoners for their information and because you can win fights easier if they know they can surrender. That doesn’t change just because Russia decided to commit war crimes.
You’re still stuck in the pop science idea of Realism being some macho do anything ideology. Even as you quote from the realist facet of the modern theory of using all 4 schools. There’s a reason the United States, EU, and China haven’t pursued pure realism. Israel isn’t going to suddenly make it work. And in many ways they’ve already lost this war. They’ve destroyed their international reputation and there will be economic repercussions for them at the very least. At most, they’ve opened the door to a single state solution just based on their public treatment of Palestine.