- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
I’M GONNA KILL THE PALESTINIANS! I’M GONNA DO IT!
sane people walks out
The world is turning against Israel but your average Israeli dumbass is still convinced that Israel is the protagonist of human history and simply a victim of everyone else’s bullying.
Whole country filled with that ex everyone has had.
Why are war criminals and genocidal maniacs allowed at the UN? Would they let Hitler speak at the UN assembly?
If theu weren’t allowed in the UN, the UN wouldn’t even exist lol.
UN is just diplomacy, but with an extra fancy logo and symbolic parliamentary voting, it doesn’t have real powers.
It astounds me that people cannot understand this
There was no UN assembly when Hitler was alive, and he had Germany leave the predecessor League of Nations when he came to power.
They let him host the Olympics, so yeah probably.
Also the US has veto power at the UN. So nothing can be done unless the US approves. Since the US enthusiastically supports genocide, nothing can be done.
Not sure the UN let Hitler host the Olympics.
Sure, but a lot of people use “the UN” as a sort of shorthand for “all the countries of the world”. Representing the whole world is, after all, one of the stated primary goals of the organization.
The organization that didn’t exist until after WWII?
The organization that isn’t responsible for deciding where the Olympics are held?
And as far as stated primary goals:
United Nations Charter, Chapter I:
Purposes and PrinciplesArticle 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
- To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
- To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
- To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
- To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Nothing about representing the whole world. How would it even do that? Take a vote on the world’s favorite ice cream and the winner is the world’s favorite?
I know the UN didn’t exist back when Germany hosted the Olympics in Berlin. That isn’t the point of what I said. Then again, you’re clearly not the type of person that can think critically about the things that they read given your response here.
You seriously read phrases like “develop friendly relations among nations” “take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace” “encourag[e] respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” and came away thinking that representing everyone in the world has nothing to do with this organization? That’s absolutely asinine.
Do they let you use the pointy scissors?
a lot of people use “the UN” as a sort of shorthand for “all the countries of the world”.
No, no they don’t.
Yes they absolutely do. Maybe you don’t but that’s not the same thing as nobody, is it?
Doesn’t Russia also have veto power? But does anything the UN does actually matter? It’s always “non binding” resolutions. And if it’s supposed to be binding, who is going to enforce it?
The UN was formed after WWII and it was a scheme by the allies to cement their power going forward. All permanent security council members with veto power were the winning side of WWII.
The UN basically has no powers against the wishes of any member with a veto.
My understanding has been that one of the main purposes of the UN is to attempt to prevent or deescalate wars, by providing a forum for diplomacy. To that end, the kinds of people liable to start wars are exactly the kind of people one would encourage to attend it. Now, it may not have exactly proven very good at that (though it’s a bit hard to say when we can’t look at what history since it’s founding would have looked like without it), but still, kicking those guys out doesn’t actually do anything about what they’re doing, it just tells them that you don’t like them, which they probably already knew.
No it sends a message that there is no tolerance for you especially trying to mimic the holocaust from ww2 that was the whole origin story to the UN.
But there is some degree of tolerance, and must be for diplomacy to work at all.
“No tolerance” would mean actually taking military action against the Zionist regime, at which point diplomacy has failed and the UN is no longer the correct forum.
Conversely, for the sake of minimising the destruction and loss of lives war causes, there always has to be an option to go back to diplomacy instead. Excluding him from the UN wouldn’t make him stop. It would just close off one way out of this horrendous war.
To see what happens to a cornered warlord with nothing left to lose and no option for diplomacy, look to the late stages of WW2: absolute war, massive waste of lives on all sides, missery beyond measure. That is what the UN was created for: to provide at least a chance to reduce human suffering.
That chance must be offered to Netanyahu, not for his sake, but for the sake of all the people that might not have to die for his megalomania. Walking out shows the disdain clearly enough, but it’s less definite than walling him off entirely.
Removed by mod
No, I fucking wouldn’t. I’d call for domestic resistance. I’d call for economic sanctions. I’d call for military intervention. I’d call for all the same things that have been called for both in this case and in the Ukraine invasion. I’d call for all the tools of pressure to make diplomacy the most appealing option.
Besides, that’s a false equivalency anyway: Hitler wasn’t included in any UN talks either. That didn’t stop him, so why do you think shutting out Netanyahu would do so?
The whole international situation was fundamentally different and incomparable. Most obviously, there was no UN. There also wasn’t any firm set of alliances that would have issued sanctions or brought a stronger military response once war did break out.
Hitler was ignored, that’s why he wasn’t stopped.
On the other hand, Hitler didn’t have a nuclear power backing him up and forestalling any military response. He also had no “fuck everyone’s shit up, because mine is lost anyway” options left.
Netanyahu is protected, that’s why he isn’t being stopped.
The UN is an attempt to offer diplomacy as a resort because it’s better than whatever other last resort they might come up with.
deleted by creator
Imagine how Trump would’ve reacted of they did that to him
I’d rather not imagine it.
I’d rather see it.
Do we know which delegations walked out?
which delegations did not?
“Please order in da hall”
“I’ll have the pepperoni pizza. Thanks.”
Fine choice sir. Enjoy your pizza 🍕
Order in da hall is in progress
