A few hours ago, the Israeli Defense Forces committed a new massacre in the Gaza Strip that exceeded all expectations. The forces bombed a hospital housing civilians fleeing the bombing, in addition to those injured as a result of the bombings. The targeting of the hospital left more than 600 dead, and the hospital administration confirmed that all of them were civilians.
According to the latest statistics, the death toll as a result of the continuous bombing for 12 days exceeded 3,000, in addition to an unspecified number of wounded and the complete destruction of the infrastructure of the entire northern Gaza Strip, which is already besieged, while preventing the entry of food and medical aid through all crossings leading to the Gaza Strip.

Regardless of whether you support the Palestinian right or support Israel, I cannot imagine a rational person who would question the horror of what is happening to more than two million citizens in front of the eyes of the world. You may have been affected by the death of 200 Israelis after the Hamas attack last October 7, but in your opinion, is it permissible to react in this barbaric way? Hamas did not kill children or attack hospitals, and no matter how strong it is, it cannot reach the size of the military might of a force like Israel, which is supported by the most powerful armies in the world. Who benefits from killing more than a thousand children and destroying hospitals and shelters?

Believe me, I am unable to even formulate the appropriate expressions to describe what I feel. I am no longer as surprised by what Israel does as I am by the position of countries, entities, and even companies.
Can someone explain to me what is the benefit of international law that imposes certain conditions, even in cases of war, that hospitals and shelter centers should not be targeted and the way for humanitarian crossings should be opened? Why does everyone view the American veto as a normal step, while the Security Council and the entire United Nations agree to condemn what is happening? Can a rational person explain to me what is the benefit of establishing international law in light of the existence of what is called the right of veto? Then why do those with the veto insist on remaining within the United Nations and international legitimacy if they constantly overturn its decisions that agree with them? How can laws be effectively activated under the veto?