Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal on earth, and we have no issue sanctioning them excessively.

Not sure if it used to be the case with South Africa too, but I'm baffled how much ideological support Israel still has, in various population groups. There are at least two religious groups who seem to view it as integral part of a divine plan that trumps all other considerations. ("mainstream" Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians)

Then there various secular narratives around the Jewish homeland, the rebirth (and Germany's redemption) after the Holocaust etc.

For western politicians, it seems far easier to chime in to the dehumanization of Palestinians and either paint the daily suffering there as "tragic but necessary", make fun of it or dismiss it completely - than to object to those stories.

This seems to work on a different layer than geopolitics, so I have doubts that a shift in geopolitics alone would change this. (I may be wrong)

Though maybe the changed perception of Israel after the Gaza war might change it.

It is funny how much hand wringing is done with nuclear weapons. like they are this big line in the sand when really the same result happens with or without them. Gaza looks as wrecked as Hiroshima or Dresden. Doesn't matter it seems in terms of the function. I guess the bigger risk is really the implication vs the action. It is like Kayfabe for the political class.

Might really is doing some heavy lifting here. If the UN turns on Israel and they become sanctioned by the west the most likely outcome is that Israel turns to China. China needs stabilizing forces in the Middle East because of their lack of domestic fossil fuels. They also see similarities between the Gaza situation and Taiwan. The Israelis are fiercely aggressive on security issues. They will not give up on that because of sanctions I think. What US backing is really doing is mostly just making it cheaper for Israel to defend itself so that the Israelis feel less pressure to be aggressive with making buffer zones. Without the US funding the iron dome we would see a real genocide in Gaza.

Did it? Because this was also always the argument for the "League of Nations" that came before it. If you read 1930s newspapers that's what they give as a reason for the organization's existence ...

Now after WW2, consensus is that the League of Nations may have outright caused WW2, and certainly contributed more than any other individual factor. The League of Nations was the embodiment of the treaty of Versailles. As if that wasn't bad enough, the League of Nations was also the league of nations that stopped most reactions against Hitler immediately before the war.

I'm not even going to bother drawing the obvious parallel with how the UN is treating nuclear powers, and people defending themselves against attacks by a nuclear (or trying-to-be-nuclear) power.

> highest entity that could apply leverage

What is the lowest entity that can apply leverage? Regardless of what US or UN does or doesn't, you can start boycotting today.

[flagged]

It has taught us the the UN is completely corrupted by antizionist hate. The UN Human Rights Council passed 68 resolutions against Israel in its first decade (2006–2016) — more than the other 67 resolutions against the rest of the world combined, and three times more than any other single country. Meanwhile, 48 countries with serious human rights abuses received zero condemnatory resolutions, including China, Russia, Cuba, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. Countries that did receive resolutions included Syria (20), Myanmar (11), North Korea (9), Belarus (6), Iran (6), and Eritrea (5). Contrast these basket case countries like North Korea and Iran with Israel's record of liberal democracy, free elections, an independent judiciary, rule of law, protections for speech, religion, minorities, women, and LGBTQ people. Israel aint perfect but please, even antzionist haters can see how ridiculously corrupted the UN it is by antizionst hate.

Perhaps it was a rhetorical question.

History has shown that having a multitude of roughly-equal competing powers results in more per-capita death from war than when there is 1 or two dominant nations. The 1800's and early 1900's were bloody. Post WWII has had less death from war.

Unless you're talking about Zionists returning to their homeland, you're advocating for ethnic cleansing. Palestinians should not be refugees from their own land.

Do you plan to do that to any other Countries in the Middle East? Saudi Arabia's human rights record all good for you? Pakistan? China and the Uyghurs - mass internment camps and sterilisation of female prisoners. They get a complete pass? Antizionism is Bondi Beach. Antizionism is a hate movement.

This doesn't seem to even relate to the question. How am I suppose to out the Israeli government to my local police? Or the miriad entities that support it?

Pro-tip (observe what the UK does closely): Don't call it a genocide and then you don't need to do anything about it.

And how do you suggest they do that?

The security council was built around the nuclear powers at the time. I guess there are two ways to look at it:

1: The new nuclear powers should be included, I guess including N Korea, India, and Pakistan. And possibly Israel, if they admit to having them.

2: Rethink the whole thing. Are nukes really as important as everybody thought they were after WWII? If not, what should we look at to decide who to include?

the vetoes are pretty much the sole differentiator between the UN and the league of nations, which failed.

in theory its better if you don't give veto power to great powers because they'll abuse it. in practice it's what keeps the fragile system that prevents WW3 from total collapse, as happened with the league of nations.

I sort of see your logic other than South Africa. Why would you drop two nuclear powers who have some means of force projection for a middling economy and military?