Within the subject of ethics—at its most basic level—human beings grapple with the question of what ought to be done within a given set of circumstances.
Once we arrive at an understanding of what ought to be done, the next step is to contrast it with what is done, or what tends to happen in reality.
We busy ourselves, often with great difficulty, over questions such as: What is right and what is wrong? How do we distinguish between good and bad? More importantly, how should we, as human beings, live our lives in a moral and ethical way?
In asking these questions, we seek a framework to guide our decisions and actions—one that aligns with moral principles and values.
These are not abstract inquiries. They are urgent, especially in a global village where visible and invisible interests—declared and undeclared—shape much of human endeavour.
Yet, throughout history, many have argued that it is the strong who determine what is right. That might makes right. But can this principle withstand moral scrutiny?
Consider this: If one accepts that might makes right, does that principle extend to the horrific act of rape? If someone has the physical strength to overpower a woman, does that make their action morally acceptable? No one, in good conscience, would argue so.
If a woman's body is sacred to the extent that no one should subdue it by force, then why isn't national sovereignty treated with the same reverence? Why is force unacceptable in one domain and justifiable in another? This is the contradiction I’m trying to understand.
Determining what is right in today’s world is no easy task, particularly when global power is unevenly distributed. Some nations possess overwhelming military and financial power that others could never hope to match. It’s hard to ignore the reality that such power often exists not to serve justice, but to ensure the powerful can act with impunity.
In this landscape, what becomes of institutions like the United Nations, whose General Assembly resolutions are often symbolic and whose Security Council decisions can be vetoed by a few? Who gave the power of veto to a handful of nations, and why can no small or less powerful nation exercise it?
What, then, is the global rule of law?
Let’s consider a historical case: the founding of the state of Israel. The United Nations established a state for one people on land that had been inhabited for generations by another.
The existing communities were forcefully expelled, many of them killed. Is it right to found a nation through land seizure simply because one has the military means to do so?
Where was the compensation for those who lost their homes and livelihoods? Is it unreasonable to ask whether the Palestinians were cheated? Why was one group granted statehood and the other left stateless?
Israel, backed militarily by powerful allies, has been able to assert its dominance over the Palestinians for decades. Their land continues to be annexed. Their lives are controlled. Their resistance is branded terrorism, while their suffering is rendered invisible. How can peace emerge from such beginnings?
We often hear that Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbours. But I wonder: who wouldn't be hostile to a state founded on their dispossession? Who really cheated whom?
Today, we live in a world where it is somehow "acceptable" to kill over 60,000 people—most of them women and children—bomb 35 hospitals, and impose a starvation blockade on a population, all while claiming to be the victim. Those with the power determine whether their “enemies” eat, and if they eat, how much.
Is Israel right simply because it enjoys the unyielding backing of the UK and the US?
Was the recent attack on Iran right?
Maybe it is time for the world to open its eyes and re-evaluate Israel's actions. Is Israel gaslighting the international community, leveraging the tragedy of the Holocaust to justify actions that would otherwise be condemned under international law?
Must the people of Gaza accept their slaughter and starvation simply because their oppressors are survivors of past trauma and now control the levers of global power?
These are questions I don’t claim to have answers for. I only hope that, in reading them, your conscience is stirred as mine is.
See you soon.