You're correct, there is no sense in pursuing anything like "international law".

Until reasonable people everywhere can agree that a crime is a crime no matter who does it, the powerful will oppress the weak.

And it will always be "retaliation". The weaker is criminal, the stronger retaliating.

Take the Palestinian - Israeli situation.

The Israelis build settlement on Palestinian land.

The Palestinians protest.

The Israelis build.

The Palestinians go to the UN, who set the boundaries.

The UN writes a letter.

The Israelis build.

The Palestinians throw rocks, killing the odd Israeli. If you are the strong won, you call that criminal.

The Israelis shoot rockets, killing 25 Palestinians for every Israeli. If you are the strong one, you call that "retaliation". Brought it on themselves. And, their friends, and their neighbors.

The Palestinians, feeling hopeless and despairing of finding effective assistance from "international law", use suicide bombers. Terrorism. A crime. Loss ratio goes to 3 to 1.

The Israelis invade, arresting, looting, vandalizing the weaker Palestinians, claiming "retaliation", not a crime.

There's a lot wrong in that scenario. The Israelis don't want anything like "international law", because they are strong and wrong.

Until international law can recognize that crimes are committed only by the weak, it doesn't have a chance.

I'm inclined to agree with you.

Arf