• @febra
    link
    English
    558 months ago

    Nothing wrong with that. It’s a good way to keep accountability and see where every country stands.

    • roastedDeflator
      link
      fedilink
      -108 months ago

      I agree with you when you say that of accountability is important but this move doesn’t stop the Genocide.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        168 months ago

        No, it won’t stop the genocide. Most likely nothing will. But all of these will be evidence in the future to label these countries as supporters of genocide. A stain that will never wash off.

        • @filister
          link
          English
          38 months ago

          History books are written by the victors unfortunately.

        • roastedDeflator
          link
          fedilink
          9
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Of course , this is what the UN is there for. I believe we have to be vocal -literally and metaphorically- to stop this Genocide. For those who have access/work in bureaucracy they should do these actions. For the rest of us that do not, we should be on the streets etc

      • @febra
        link
        English
        14
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It won’t stop it, but we’ll at least see who’s on which side. Having a public record is good.

  • @jpreston2005
    link
    English
    -58 months ago

    And the US is going to veto it because…?

    • @Mrkawfee
      link
      English
      178 months ago

      They did already. They are Israel’s bitches.

    • @cosmicrookie
      link
      English
      108 months ago

      US was actually the only country to veto. Does not look good tbf

    • @LifeInMultipleChoice
      link
      English
      38 months ago

      If they didn’t veto it what would happen? Is there an article like NATO that would stipulate that the UN counties would go to war… I didn’t think there was. So I am unsure if would have any change.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        48 months ago

        Resolutions made by the UN security council (which this would have been) can be enforced through the UN peacekeeping mission (aka the blue helmets) by stationing UN troops along the contact line to prevent hostilities from resuming. This has had mixed success in the past, there is actually a peacekeeping mission stationed right now on the Israel/Lebanon border which hasn’t prevented either side from shooting at each other after the October 7 attack.

        • @LifeInMultipleChoice
          link
          English
          18 months ago

          That’s good to know. So does that just require a majority vote? (Which if this wasn’t vetoed would have been a landslide). Or does it require some other percentage?

          • outrageousmatter
            link
            English
            48 months ago

            UN general assembly majority vote, but security council, the permanent members all need to agree as even one nay is a veto.

            • @LifeInMultipleChoice
              link
              English
              1
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              So that would mean if the U.S. eventually doesn’t veto it, Russia might as it has clearly been to their benefit.

              What a stupid world we live in.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        18 months ago

        The UN is not a military defense organisation la NATO. It has military efforts, but they are all Pacific in the sense that they don’t take part and only help the civilian population (e.g.: running medical and food supplies, or protecting hospitals, etc.)

        The UN could go for economic and political sanctions, or try to move this in the Hague Courts in case the request goes unheard.