ok so basically your saying that stuff like the geneva convention is irrelevant, international law is irrelevant and any nation, as long as they are strong enough, can ethnically cleanse, or genocide, their weaker neighbors. This also suggests that if a nation is barbaric or inhuman, its OK to respond in kind, or even to be disproportionately more barbaric. barbaric is probably the wrong word, say rather more technical and efficient in killing. as an example the 2000 lbs bombs that were used over the last couple of days by Israel (guided by the UK) to bomb the tents currently in gaza (400 dead in recent days). this is not a headline, its a reality.
That's exactly what I'm saying, it is irrelevant with respect to collective punishment. It's relevant with regards to other conventions of war.
The UN was established by the Allies after their victory in WWII. The permanent members are the Victor states - USA, Britain, France, Russia, and China. The Allies utilized collective punishment in the most brutal means possible to win the war - relentless bombing and firebombing campaigns against their enemies' civilian centers. This is not in dispute. So it really is a case here of "rules for thee, not for me. We can utilize collective punishment to break the will of the enemy, but you can not"
We have an obligation as civilized people to eradicate barbarism. Barbarism is not required to eliminate it. Barbarians are pacified by sufficient punishment, when they fear the consequences of their actions. Punishment doesn't require raping children.