Interesting reading: A column by Bret Stephens in the Jerusalem Post about the “Goodists” and why mere displays of good will are insufficient to bring about peace:
Thus, according to the Goodists, the great global challenges are poverty, hunger, disease and war. This may be true in the most general sense. But it sidesteps the hard fact that the real culprits are the foolish and sometimes ill-intentioned leaders whose policies lead to such things. Goodists would also contend that the real goal for nations at war is moral victory — if necessary, by means of surrender — rather than victory itself.
This is why the Goodists make a fetish of the concept of legitimacy. To liberate Iraq or not to liberate Iraq? About the only thing interesting about that debate was that so many “good” people actually believed that securing Security Council approval was morally a worthier goal than liberating 23 million people from the boot of a merciless tyrant. Or take the matter of Israel’s security fence: Here again, it is left to Right-wingers to fret about militarily defensible borders, whereas to Goodists what matters is whether that fence meets with the approval of The Hague.
There’s lots more.