The test of the resolution was based on the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion in July that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory was illegal.

The resolution also calls on member states not to sell arms or military equipment to Israel that would be used in Gaza, the West Bank, and east Jerusalem.

Among the 43 countries that abstained were Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. Some 12 of the 27 European Union countries abstained, including Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 61 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Rights" can only be taken away by force, if there is no method to ensure compliance, this is yet another meaningless resolution.

[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 74 points 1 day ago (4 children)

The UN is a diplomatic organization. It is a forum to discuss things and literally has no actual means to enforce anything. Its goal is not enforcement, it's to discuss.

[–] filister@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago

And prevent such global wars like WWII. Funnily enough, the state of Israel was funded exactly by an UN resolution, and now Israel is trying to discredit the same institution that's responsible for the existence of their state.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 47 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Exactly. Every time the UN does something, people say "they can't enforce it".

Well, that's the whole point of the UN. To resolve things without using force.

It's a good design, designed by people who learned from the horrors of WW2.

It's sad to see how many people nowadays forget those lessons and are itching for global war.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

You got it ass-backwards. The point of the UN as opposed to LoN was that it can enforce shit. And do that very heavily. The only problem was that the chosen group of wise and powerful to decide this now includes Russia as the heir of the USSR (why the hell) and China (which is not the China that got the place initially) and UK (which is collecting cannibals to suck off all over the globe) and USA (which just arbitrarily invaded Iraq and didn't even apologize) and France (seems kinda normal, but CFA etc were not nice) and the situation really sucks.

[–] Bertuccio@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Russia and the US are involved because the other half of the UNs purpose is to keep them both from nuking shit.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 3 points 14 hours ago

I, personally, am itching for progress. In my lifetime. What history has proven is that progress is never achieved without bloodshed.

Though there is one very easy step the US at least can take that isn't bloodshed: STOP SELLING WEAPONS TO ISRAEL.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 1 points 14 hours ago

I, personally, am itching for progress. In my lifetime. What history has proven is that progress is never achieved without bloodshed.

Though there is one very easy step the US at least can take that isn't bloodshed: STOP SELLING WEAPONS TO ISRAEL.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 1 points 14 hours ago

I, personally, am itching for progress. In my lifetime. What history has proven is that progress is never achieved without bloodshed.

Though there is one very easy step the US at least can take that isn't bloodshed: STOP SELLING WEAPONS TO ISRAEL.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 1 points 14 hours ago

I, personally, am itching for progress. In my lifetime. What history has proven is that progress is never achieved without bloodshed.

Though there is one very easy step the US at least can take that isn't bloodshed: STOP SELLING WEAPONS TO ISRAEL.

[–] antmzo220@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Why does it really matter that issues can be "discussed" if the issue being discussed is as atrocious as what Israel is doing to Palestine.

Israel and the US know that what they're doing is wrong. Them and their crony countries aren't going to change course because of this.

It doesn't exactly prevent WW2 if they tell Hitler to stop and he doesn't listen...unless of course they choose to let him continue his goals unimpeded rather than go to war, citing their documented disagreement as sufficient counter action...

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago

Because there is value in a large group speaking with a unified voice to say "this is wrong, and you need to know that the rest of us think it's wrong. Your behavior will affect the relationship you have with us all going forward". Direct intervention isn't the only form of consequence.

Is it the best solution to the problem? No. Is it still worth doing? Yes.

[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

What is the point of voting, especially veto, if it's all just voicing complaints?

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 18 hours ago

If you hear 5 people yell at 5 people then they take a vote and the vote comes out 101 to 5 and the rest staying silent (hypothetical), it's different than 53-53. It helps you understand what others believe/support while not having to listen to all of them talk.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So about as useful as us here as far as getting anything to actually happen :(

[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago

When it comes to Israel, they have very little incentive in changing their ways when the US refuses to join the rest of the world in condemning them.

Still, there are 124 countries that made it clear that they think what Israel is doing is wrong.