[flagged]
How is it a winning argument? "In our eyes we're civilized and they're savages, and if they don't act civilized we're also free to abandon or civilized ways and act the way we condemn...".
No, rather because they want to use the international law to their advantage, not to their detriment.
Are you suggesting they should not try to use laws to protect themselves from genocide/displacement?
Yes, I'd say a side that starts a conflict with an egregious assault on civilians should be limited in its right to use international law to stop a similarly or less illegal counterattack. In other words, if you attack someone with a knife you shouldn't be able to press charges for punches flying back.
Or, at the very lease, not until the organizers and perpetrators of the initial atrocity are surrendered to that same court they are appealing to.
That is to say, anyone slaughtering one another have abandoned all pretense of civility.
You're pointing the finger at the State of Palestine and "any Muslim country", when the real supporters of Hamas for years has been Israel and Netanyahu.
You said true things before about Netanyahu propping up Hamas, and he certainly has a lot to answer for.
But you then went way too far in this statement. The "real supporters" or Hamas are not the Israelis or Netanyahu. They existed before Netanyahu, and they're armed and funded to massive degrees by Iran. And while Netanyahu certainly had a certain symbiosis with Hamas, and used them to weaken the PA, Hamas is its own organization; the diversion of the funds that Netanyahu helped secure them to creating the October 7th attack was certainly not anyone's desire except Hamas's own.
Willingness isn't really in question. Ability to do so is, though.