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 22 hours ago (15 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 72 points 22 hours ago (14 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.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 45 points 21 hours ago (8 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.

[–] antmzo220@lemmy.ml 11 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours 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 28 points 20 hours 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.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (11 replies)