Falling on ears deafened from the bombs and guns and eyes blinded by rage and hatred. You’re going to actually have to do something, UN. Research, advocacy and reporting is all very valid work worth doing, and I appreciate it more than you could possibly know, but there’s no reasoning with power-hungry aggrieved zealotry. Logic works when the audience’s primary motivation is based in logic.
I mean they’d probably love to do something about it but the security council has three (maybe 2 if France doesn’t interfere) pro-Israel veto powers so it ain’t happening.
Genocide for us and not for them. And then the politican and media cry when they come after these countries who veto these resolutions with sucide bombing and “terrorist” attacks…
You’re going to actually have to do something, UN.
Kinda missing the point of the UN here. It’s about keeping dialogue open so that we all know what each other thinks and wants and can offer.
The UN = all of us. There’s nothing the world can do about this because we would have to either all agree or else go to war against America + Israel.
Given the existence of world powers, realistically we are never going to get UN intervention where countries like US or China are stakeholders, so that’s not how it is designed. It would just turn into open warfare and we would probably be on WW6 by now.
Given the existence of world powers, realistically we are never going to get UN intervention where countries like US or China are stakeholders, so that’s not how it is designed. It would just turn into open warfare and we would probably be on WW6 by now.
I mean, yes, but it would still be nice for the UN to think about addressing its own systemic biases in deciding what deserves intervention. For starters, by looking at why only those 5 nations conveniently have eternal veto on the Security Council instead of something like a rotating country moderator panel like other councils.
Given the UN literally created the modern state of Israel and defined its borders in 1947, which arguably is part of the reason this particular dispute over the territory, which happens to have been annexed by Israel in 1948.
The actions of the UN pre-vietnam war are essentially a one-off “oops we were figuring out the rules” type deal. The fact that the UN and the world at large survived the Cold War, happened in large part because all major nuclear powers had veto power, giving them a rare opportunity for open dialogue that doesn’t threaten their sovereignty. Avoiding nuclear war and/or WWIII is the UN’s Prime Directive, everything else is just a bonus. Unfortunately the only way you’ll get Putin, Biden, and Xi Xinping to sit at the same table is by assuring them that no binding decision will be taken, so that is what the UN guarantees by design.
Falling on ears deafened from the bombs and guns and eyes blinded by rage and hatred. You’re going to actually have to do something, UN. Research, advocacy and reporting is all very valid work worth doing, and I appreciate it more than you could possibly know, but there’s no reasoning with power-hungry aggrieved zealotry. Logic works when the audience’s primary motivation is based in logic.
I mean they’d probably love to do something about it but the security council has three (maybe 2 if France doesn’t interfere) pro-Israel veto powers so it ain’t happening.
Genocide for us and not for them. And then the politican and media cry when they come after these countries who veto these resolutions with sucide bombing and “terrorist” attacks…
UN can’t do anything because anything that will negatively affecting Israel will be vetoed by US.
@fiat_lux
Kinda missing the point of the UN here. It’s about keeping dialogue open so that we all know what each other thinks and wants and can offer.
The UN = all of us. There’s nothing the world can do about this because we would have to either all agree or else go to war against America + Israel.
Given the existence of world powers, realistically we are never going to get UN intervention where countries like US or China are stakeholders, so that’s not how it is designed. It would just turn into open warfare and we would probably be on WW6 by now.
I mean, yes, but it would still be nice for the UN to think about addressing its own systemic biases in deciding what deserves intervention. For starters, by looking at why only those 5 nations conveniently have eternal veto on the Security Council instead of something like a rotating country moderator panel like other councils.
Given the UN literally created the modern state of Israel and defined its borders in 1947, which arguably is part of the reason this particular dispute over the territory, which happens to have been annexed by Israel in 1948.
The original UN map before the First Modern Arab Israeli war for anyone unfamiliar with it.
The actions of the UN pre-vietnam war are essentially a one-off “oops we were figuring out the rules” type deal. The fact that the UN and the world at large survived the Cold War, happened in large part because all major nuclear powers had veto power, giving them a rare opportunity for open dialogue that doesn’t threaten their sovereignty. Avoiding nuclear war and/or WWIII is the UN’s Prime Directive, everything else is just a bonus. Unfortunately the only way you’ll get Putin, Biden, and Xi Xinping to sit at the same table is by assuring them that no binding decision will be taken, so that is what the UN guarantees by design.