Nothing wrong with that. It’s a good way to keep accountability and see where every country stands.
I agree with you when you say that of accountability is important but this move doesn’t stop the Genocide.
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.
History books are written by the victors unfortunately.
True. But every nation has its downfall. It’s only a matter of time.
It doesn’t but it doesn’t cause harm either.
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
It won’t stop it, but we’ll at least see who’s on which side. Having a public record is good.
It also doesn’t further encourage it.
Don’t let perfect stand in the way of better.
And the US is going to veto it because…?
They did already. They are Israel’s removed.
US was actually the only country to veto. Does not look good tbf
And now China is condemning it. Like, wtf. I honestly don’t know why we are blocking U.N. action on this. It’s brazenly pro-ethnic cleansing. It’s not like there’s wiggle room to debate, there’s no room. It’s just plainly a mass killing of a minority population that was already living under apartheid conditions.
Are our political leaders just religious enough to quake in fear at the thought of angering their abrahamic diety? Or is this confirmation that there really IS a powerful zionist cabal that can manipulate US foreign policy?
I mean, both are conspiratorial stretches, but wtf else could biden hang this decision on?
deleted by creator
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
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.
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.
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?
UN general assembly majority vote, but security council, the permanent members all need to agree as even one nay is a veto.
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.
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.
