It is pretty bold to be the only country voting to continue genocide.
“Bold leadership”
Funny way of saying “Being led by a leash around our balls due to an evangelical death cult as an important voting bloc”
That kind of power over the UN shouldn’t exist.
That’s why some countries are talking about creating an alternative UN. That schism can’t be good.
Already happened once.
The League of Nations was the previous try, and it’s failure to stop WW2 sealed it’s fate. A lot of it’s functions were transferred into the UN after the war, but really the victors of WW2 positioned themselves in positions of power in the new organisation. Hence the “Permanent members of the security council”. To be fair, the victors of WW1 had done the same thing when the LoN was formed. The difference was that this time it included the USSR, which Russia inherited it’s position from. That inheritance is now biting us in the butt, as Putin wants to forcibly reconstruct the USSR.
Why anybody thought a voting system, around which military actions are justifiable, was going to work is beyond me. Especially when you give 5 countries veto powers in perpetuity. The charter of the UN is to prevent world wars, and it’s structure makes it completely ineffectual when a superpower wants to go to war.
I have a feeling Ukraine and Palestine will become the UNs failure. One permanent member of the security council deeply involved in each conflict vetoing anything against their interests. The UN should be in both zones, but is powerless.
I think that a voting system is good. The problem is the veto power.
The results of voting would decide to stop Israel from attacking Palestine, if it wasn’t for the US’ veto. Voting would also lift the stupid embargo against Cuba, if it wasn’t for the US veto. Etc.
The results of voting would decide to stop Israel from attacking Palestine
Would that voting result actually stop Israel from attacking Palestine?
I feel like the people claiming the UN is useless completely misunderstand its goals. It can’t force any nation to do or stop doing anything, regardless of any vote.
That was a miswording on my part. I meant it would decide that. Which means they would at least impose sanctions against Israel (like they should’ve done years ago) if they didn’t stop.
If Israel would actually stop, nobody knows. But countries would do something to discourage them.
Countries can impose sanctions on Israel right now, without a UN vote.
Yes, they can. But they would go against UN decisions, if they do that. And yes, while I know that they’re sovereign countries and the UN can’t stop them, international diplomacy is complicated and fragile.
Not only that, but these sanctions need international coordination to be effective. If it’s just a couple countries not dealing with them, nothing will happen. They’ll just do business with someone else.
I just hope we can drop the UN altogether and create something else in its place. Something more democratic, where votes count. Having the most sanguinary war machine of a country having the right to veto peace talks is completely insane.
Honestly the UN is useless. It’s funny cause the organization before was also useless. You can’t have a global organization with a few countries holding all the cards.
It’s only good for WHO, UNESCO, and UNHCR.
bold leadership on genocide… but I’m sure americans are happy to give healtcare to send weapons to Israel
To be fair, genocide is as American as Manifest Destiny.
Another reason why we should move to direct voting.
There’s a 0% chance the US would support sending aid to Israel if it was put to a majority vote.
The only people allowed to commit genocide is the people who were victim of genocide?
No thank you.
You really want to open it up to everyone?
Shameful.
