Calls are growing for the UN Security Council to be reformed after the US became the only member to use its veto power to block a Gaza ceasefire resolution, a move welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The UN chief says he will keep pushing for peace.
Nothing changed on the UNSC when Russia vetoed the resolution to leave Ukraine.
I’m not educated enough to say which is a “worse” violation of the principles the UN stands for, but I’ll go out on a limb and say nothing will change this time, either.
Who’s to say the call for reform is only motivated by the most recent ridiculous veto?
Genocide is obviously worse than annexation. One just wants the land, the other wants to kill everyone on it too. Israel is far more evil than Russia.
That said nothing will change indeed.
Russia is committing genocide. They’re both evil. Israel has been doing it for longer and is better at it.
We could save so much money if we just disbanded the UN.
I used to think the same way. But with UN, at least someone “official” has a responsibility to “raise the voice”. It is better than nothing, I guess.
And how is that going for us? The Middle East doing fine now?
Why do you think it would not be worse without the UN?
Do you think this is the only thing the UN does? Or that everything else it does does not matter?
I think they spend a lot of money and park in handicapped spots.
We got an edgy one here. No one get cut
Got an argument go ahead and make it.
Because your argument of taking up parking spaces is so worth debating lol
The UK and the US voluntarily walked in to that. Multiple times. That has less than nothing to do with the UN.
I see. So the UN has had no impact on the region?
Just because it isn’t 100% effective that doesn’t mean it has no impact.
Right just one identical to not existing
You’re welcome to move to Russia any time you want
In the global scheme of things the UN is so fucking cheap. I can’t understand your point at all.
Those parking spaces must be worth thousands of dollars!
Th UN gives all countries the ability to have a voice on the world stage, yeah the security council can suck sometimes but not having the UN would be so much worse than having it
If only we had some global communication system that allowed people to post their opinions. Maybe a packet based one.
We already had world leaders tweeting their opinions at other, but they still meet in person to discuss issues and form agreements.
A structured system is necessary when you have meetings with representatives for nearly every person on the planet
And again how is that working?
Last I heard we haven’t descended into nuclear war in the last 75 years.
Or having gone into another World War.
Are you familiar with the failure of the League of Nations? I’d look into it if you’re not.
Could you not say thats because of MAD from nuclear weapons?
No, MAD seems to be a failed philosophy as it assumes that aggressive actions are attributable to clearly defined parties. MAD got shook the fuck up as soon as we realized dirty bombs could exist.
I hope that our long standing mostly peace is due to the UN and media innovations… I cynically suspect that it’s due to neoliberalism and globalization making a grand war too economically costly.
Instead of replying with that same comment again, why don’t you explain what alternative you have in mind. Don’t just vaguely mention ‘packets’
Oh I am sorry I wasn’t aware that I had to come up with a solution if I point out the current solution isn’t working. Shit. Better say nothing ever again and just keep giving my money to a corrupt institution that fucks up everything it touches. Sorry for pointing out the emperor has no clothing here is free fucking money
What you need to do is define “working” in order to point out that the current solution isn’t working.
To define “working” you either need to come up with a standard for how such organizations should operate, or barring that name some alternative solution that it can be compared to.
We can all agree homelessness is a problem, what matters is the solutions to the problem
Some want to house these people, some want to build more homeless shelters, some want dedicated camping sites in the city, some want dedicated camping sites outside the city, some want to simply ban them from existing in a city, etc, etc
If all you do is focus on the problem and not coming up with solutions then the problem will never be solved
This is an example of why coming up with solutions is important when discussing issues
An imperfect system doesn’t mean we need to throw out the whole system. And if we did throw it out, you can’t just not have a replacement for it.
People making posts on the Internet is not equivalent to real people meeting and being forced to at least give an answer.
That’s kind of the point here
We all agree that the current system has issues.
You’re saying the next move should be to disband it, and others are saying that we need an alternative first. I don’t think anyone here is saying the UN is perfect the way it is
The geopolitics understander has logged on
Are… Are you actually suggesting that “the internet” is a viable substitute for the UN?
Sure. At least I don’t see the internet driving around Mercedes in NYC and parking wherever they want
Yeah, lets replace the UN with a fuckin’ facebook group.
I’m trying to find a rational explanation to this whole thread, but I’m still failing.
Leaded gasoline? Leaded pipes? CO poisoning? Anything else?Moms Against Thermonuclear War has been marked as a private community.
I understand this logic and I’ve made this argument in the past. As time goes on, however, I’m coming to the understanding that the major thing the UN actually provides is deniability. It creates an aura of accountability without actually accomplishing it. The pageantry of rhetoric around the UN’s mission would have us believe that merely shining light on the wrongdoing of powerful nations will lead to some kind of justice. It never does. It actually breeds complacency in the same way that ranting about politics online does. You feel like you are changing something, but you aren’t. I think we need something like the UN, but the UN as currently constructed is fatally flawed and may be making things actively worse in some important ways.
So there were no “calls for reform” after a similar Russian veto about Artsakh in 2020 or recently. If nobody cares about that, then why should I care about anything else really.
There has been “calls for reform” almost every time Russia has vetoed
I haven’t seen any in those cases I mentioned. In others - yeah.
Not sure how to help you with that one. People call for an end to vetos literally every time it’s used
Nobody is surprised and that’s a bad sign. The UN was invented to give the nations of our world a shared forum to talk things out and find a “resolution” before genociding each other. The thing is we don’t expect the UN to stop conflict anymore. Not since the Balkan war and even then it was too little too late.
Yeah, this is something people don’t quite understand. The UN primarily provides platform to initiate diplomatic discourse.
Even when there is demand to reform the UN to give it more power, most people will object because “'muh sovereignty”.
This is the point exactly. The UN is a voluntary forum for signatory nations to meet and talk shit out.
What some people think of instead is the UN security council made up of 5 permanent members (US, UK, France, China, Russia) and 10 rotating members (every two years) deciding on intervention in conflicts, but there can be no veto on resolutions. That’s been a problem in the past, because rival nations just cancel each other out on some issues, making meaningful progress difficult.
People shouldn’t blame the UN for initiating talks. We now know, 121 nations are in favor of a ceasefire, 44 abstained or are too afraid to take sides and only 14 veto’d it and wanna continue bombing, that sends a pretty clear message about what the majority of nations thinks should happen.
Instead blame the nuclear powers for not being able to talk to each other anymore, blame the radicals in any conflict. Don’t blame the diplomacy.
The problem in this case is depending on the security council to act on an issue it isn’t designed to address.
The main purpose of the UN is to prevent global war, and the Security Council is the primary way in which that goal is achieved.
In that context, the P5’s veto power makes sense. It prevents resolutions pitting the world against one of the superpowers that can sustain that kind of war.
Things just dont make sense. Hamas, a very weak power, sneak attacks Israel, a relatively strong power, then hides amongst the civilian population with military targets scattered throughout neighborhoods and municipalities.
Is Hamas surprised by the mass civilian casualties or are you (the reader) the one who is surprised? Is Hamas actually weaponizing their civilians by showing the world how many are dying and being an agent of change in the UN?
Is Hamas considering these civilian deaths as martyrs? Because martyrdom is not the same as innocent death.
Why are you acting like Hamas and Israel are the only parties in the conflict? That makes no more sense than talking about a war between Palestine and Likud.
Pretending Hamas is the same as Palestinian is anti-Palestenian, which to any person with a moral compass is just as bad as antisemitism, the same as being hateful towards any ethnic group.
Picture a bank hostage situation. Police officer comes in with a fully loaded gun. A bank teller is being held at gunpoint by the robber. Never once in the history of ever has the police officer shot the bank teller.
That’s what Israel is doing.
Thanks for clarifying for me. Didn’t realize it was such a simple scenario like a bank robbery.
You clearly can’t grasp the real complicated scenario so he gave you a simplified version to make it easier to understand.
Anyone with even an ounce of empathy understands why Israel bombing children is always unacceptable. Nobody should need to explain it to you really
So, which is less acceptable:
Hamas, a military threat to Israel who hides behind children.
Or
Israel, a country with a military who is responding to military threats in a way a military would.
BTW, my original post is asking questions, but you Lemmy Users just keep making it seem I’m pro Israel just for asking.
But is Israels actions appropriate? Indiscriminate bombing across all of Gaza? Collective punishment? If they really wanted to A) save hostages and B) take out those responsible, they could do a surgical strike with special forces. Raining hellfire upon innocent people just because their might be hamas there is absolutely disgusting.
Before I answer your questions, you answer mine. Which is less acceptable?
Israel commiting genocide is awful. Hamas is just a response to that.
As you laid out your question, probably (cynically), hamas. The world has been happy to tolerate some incredibly awful governments - especially if you start looking at African dictators.
Both are unacceptable but clearly Israel is more so. In a hostage situation, you don’t bomb the neighborhood. I’d also like to point out that nobody is really defending Hamas, which is more acceptable is missing the point entirely.
Israel has serious military advantage, they can basically force a cease fire at any time. They aren’t under threat and tbh, probably let the events that started all this happen for causus belli.
The article talks about a mostly symbolic UN vote that was vetoed by the US at the request of Israel. They don’t want a ceasefire, they don’t want their hostages back, they don’t want a solution.
They just want to keep bombing.
I’ll agree israel is worse in hindsight, but Hamas kicked this off with this sneak attack that has led to this situation, so I’d say that is worse. Hamas was so successful in causing an Israeli intelligence disaster, which I feel like caused their military to lash out. All militaries do is destroy, they are not nation builders. Surgical special force operations can take a long time to plan and wouldn’t work since there were so many hostages and they kept moving them around.
What about the decades before this where Israel had been killing people, imprisoning without charges, and forcing them off their land? When that’s added for context, Israel is the one who kicked this off.
It’s more like the cops throw a grenade at the robber and teller, and when they kill the teller, the officers try to imply the teller’s complicity because they allowed the robbers to control the bank to begin with.
And then when the robbers rationalize the bank teller’s death as martyrdom for their cause, should we really feel bad for the teller?
No police in the world would say “ok, go free, and keep the hostages”. And by the way, a murderer would be better analogy than bank robber.
Also, hostages did die in real world hostage situations too, while police was targeting those hostage takers.You are an ill little man. I wish you better help.
Yes, when your own analogy fails attack a person who showed this to you. Never reevaluate your position.
You left out the part where Israel, of their own accord, goes in and kills these civilians to retaliate against what you’ve stated as a “very weak power.”
What? I was asking questions and they are not rhetorical.
Hamas might be, but the millions of non-terrorist Palestinian’s lives are worth more than to end as collateral damage.
Hamas wants dead civilians. That’s how resistance/terrorism movements work (your choice of descriptor, it’s the exact same thing).
IRA, Tamil Tigers, Viet Cong, etc. They all benefit from civilians on “their” side dying, that’s just the game they are choosing to play. Acting like you’re pwning somebody by pointing out an obvious fact won’t get you far.
And for the record, fuck Hamas.
You’re god damn right I’m surprised.
If terrorists hid in your family’s basement and then your family home and all those in it, plus their whole neighborhood, was wiped off the face of the earth, you’d sing a real different tune then.
Try to imagine Palestinians as real people, instead of faceless terrorists who “sealed their fate” when they “supported the wrong side” (basically just by existing).
Which will be vetoed by all permanent members of the security council.
