The double edged sword is that proving an ongoing crime maybe stops it from unfolding but anything other than a conviction is presented as an endorsement and encouragement to continue. That could be fine if there's really no crime, not so fine if the crime just couldn't be proven.
Considering here the old adage that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. They both lead to the same verdict from a court of public opinion point of view, and realistically the same consequences from a court of justice.
This is why, if Israel and USA and other world powers' governments, and the UN, functioned correctly and for the good of the people, then...
- Britain would never have ruled over Palestine
- Israel would have never been established in the middle of Palestine
- There would never have been a civil war in the area
- We wouldn't be using it as a vehicle for continuing to undermine democratic movements and unification in the Middle East
- We wouldn't be partnering with Mossad (and thus excusing their own activities) to entrap and spy on politicians and activists
- Women and babies wouldn't be dying
- Entire family trees wouldn't be wiped out
Additionally, anti-peace sentiment from Netanyahu would have been rooted out early on, and he would have been replaced with more stable leadership via fair anarchistic or democratic means.
Instead, our governments and their NGO partners tirelessly work to hoodwink and undereducate their populaces, precisely so that the upper class can continue unsustainably exploiting resources from artificially poor countries, while also benefiting from corpgov partnerships with artificially rich dictators to establish regulated access energy and natural resources.
This is all an extension of neoliberal policy, controlling energy and growth of both foreign and domestic demographics in order to sustain an unsustainable lifestyle of a relatively small amount of people in the upper class, and to a lesser extent (in order to incentivize obedience) the middle class.
Everyone else suffers. Either a slow death by a thousand cuts, or a swift death from above. We are witnessing increasingly horrific acts borne from poisoned authoritarian minds under the justification of juicing this shitshow for just a little bit longer, and typically, for millennia now, wrapped in religious justification, since religion has long been an effective medium of control for an undereducated populace.
It didn't have to be this way, and if these systems were actually working for us, it would be a cinch to expel this sort of perverted leadership before it has the chance to carry out unspeakable horrors.
Multiple active genocides aside, eventually these people die and we inherit a boiling planet with broken social systems, generational traumas preventing unification, fragile supply chains, depleted energy reserves, and severely impacted ecosystems and life-sustaining biogeochemical cycles.
It's ultimately up to us to organize and demand better for ourselves and of ourselves.
What problem would this solve? The Zionist movement began under the Ottoman Empire and was well underway by the time of the British Mandate, and the British were overall not entirely pleased with it. Indeed British restrictions on Zionism (by e.g., limiting Jewish migration to Palestine) was one of the major reasons the Israelis began a terror campaign against the British, culminating in the King David Hotel bombing. If not for the British Mandate's restrictions, the Zionist movement would have been in an even stronger position to seize control. Zionist political influence in Britain, and the Balfour Declaration, were obviously bad, but the outcome without them would have been the same; the Balfour Declaration only came about because of the already-existing movement.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the direct result of political Zionism and the resulting mass migration of Jewish peoples into Palestine in the late 1800s-early 1900s, it would not have mattered who was in charge of administering the area, unless they were prepared to have a zero-immigration policy in the face of enormous pressure otherwise.
Considering here the old adage that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. They both lead to the same verdict from a court of public opinion point of view, and realistically the same consequences from a court of justice.