None of these will actually achieve much, but I find it interesting which of the three possibilities people choose.
What can the world do to promote peace?
Scenario A: Some Arab terrorist group fires at Israeli cities for a few years.
Call 1 (before Israel fires back): "Stop shooting at the Israelis. It's morally wrong!"
Call 2 (before Israel fires back): "Stop shooting at the Israelis. They will fire back!"
Call 3 (after Israel fired back): "Stop shooting at the terrorists. It's oppressive!"
Does anybody notice how call 3 totally failed to prevent a war and even failed to prevent an escalation of the war AND was not even designed to prevent the war?
But let's look at another possible scenario.
Scenario B: Some Arab government decides to run a little genocide in the poorer part of the country it controls.
Call 1 (before the affected population fights back): "Stop with the genocide. It's morally wrong!"
Call 2 (before the affected population fights back): "Stop with the genocide. It might lead to civil war!"
Call 3 (when the civil war has started): "Let's work with both sides to end this conflict."
Again, what's the issue here? At which point can the violence be stopped? Is it really the best way to wait for the civil war and then to try and talk it over (while the genocide continues)?
I think the world needs to change dramatically. If we the world have decided not to act (because "violence is wrong"), then perhaps we should at least speak up before the fact, even if we risk not being able to blame Israel for the war we have at least tried to prevent.
Does anybody else notice how it is mostly conservatives who would make call 1, mostly pragmatists who would make call 2, and mostly liberals who would make call 3?
Yes, there are now many liberals who are speaking up about Darfur. But they were not speaking about about Kurdistan. It has only recently become fashionable among liberals to talk about a war that cannot be blamed on Israel.
Saddam's war against the Kurds could not be blamed on Israel. But ANYTHING done against Saddam, BY ANYONE, could easily be blamed on Israel. And it was. Arabs accused Kurds of being Zionists. They naturally assumed that the only reason the Kurds fought back when attacked with poison gas from the air was because of the natural evil tendency to support those oppressive Jews. Liberals and white supremacists accused George Bush (both of them) to fight a war for Israel. They never could see any other reason to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power.