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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] HowMany@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 hours ago

It's not self defense when they're the ones attacking.

[–] Jollyllama@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Is this just symbolic? Does it levy any penalties for not complying?

[–] Eiim@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 3 hours ago

The resolution has declaratory power only but provides international backing to those countries that want to take additional steps against Israel.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 21 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Ashamed that my country abstained here

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 10 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

And nobody will obey that decision.

ICJ has made some rulings about Artsakh too. Should have been not so hard to sanction the beheading savages out of occupying a small country and expelling its residents. By the way, in the UN charter a "country" does not only refer to UN members, that distinction is intentionally made clear in a few places.

UN is less useful than Holy Roman Empire.

[–] some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

It’s not a decision to obey. It’s just a boring skit they put on once in a while. I feel like the kids’ Model UN has more actual impact on society than the UN and its toothless performative bullshit

[–] rando895@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

I think many will obey the decision, just not the USA, Canada, terf island, the E.U., you know the usual culprits for not following international law.

[–] MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network 1 points 2 hours ago

implying that other countries do follow international law

[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago

Is terf island GB?

[–] eunieisthebus@feddit.org 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Weird that the comments and the top level post are calling out the countries which abstained but apperently no one cares about the 'against' votes.

[–] exanime@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

I think it may be due to the "against" votes coming from the obvious places (Israel, USA) and a bunch of tiny places most people couldn't point in a map.

The "curious" ones for me are Panama and Argentina. Curious as in I wonder what their statements to vote against would be

[–] erenkoylu@lemmy.ml 16 points 9 hours ago (13 children)

We need to expel Israel from the UN. These religious fanatics have no place in the civilized world.

[–] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 23 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Removing a country from the UN for doing horrible things would defeat the UN's entire purpose.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

IDK, FRY was de facto kicked out of the UN in 1992.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world -3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Which is keep the current world order of countries doing such dominating?

[–] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 8 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The UN was created after WW2 to prevent another world war and have a diplomatic channel between all countries that is always open. It's far from perfect, but it's definitely better than what we had before.

[–] Allero 8 points 5 hours ago

Part of any international sanctions is to leave something for the perpetrator to lose.

Otherwise, they can do literally everything without any further consequences whatsoever - it won't get worse for them.

Also, as rightfully mentioned, part of UN's goal is restoring peace between nations, which is harder to do when they are not members. That's the problem with Palestine, and it will get worse if Israel leaves too.

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 21 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The headline is genocide apologia and should be banned.

[–] Allero 13 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

The entire article is utter apologetic trash, doing its absolute best to show how unpopular this decision is (despite being hugely popular) and focusing on "Hamas terrorism concerns" without any consideration at all given to Palestinians.

load more comments