The UNSC is not supposed to be a just or a fair organisation. It's supposed to be the carrot for powerful nations to keep investing in the UN in general. Without UNSC, there will be no reason for China/Russia to stay in the UN.
I feel like people don’t realize that the reason the UN is often useless is because the only way the UN can exist is if all the great powers are fine with the UN. If the UN upsets any of them then they leave and the UN becomes redundant
Yes, the League of Nations failed because the great powers didn't have an incentive to stay in the organisation. Now, especially after the USSR's debacle with the Korean war UNSC resolution, they _have_ to stay in the council to make sure other powers can't levarage the UNSC to do things they don't want to happen
And the UN, or at least the UNSC, might fail because of this. I mean, giving 5 at the time "great powers" a veto power because they were the victors in WWII is pretty arbitrary in the long term, and probably not sustainable.
>WWII is pretty arbitrary in the long term, and probably not sustainable.
I think it should transition to something like the 5 biggest economies + the rotating smaller nations.
Problem is Russia is a shell of the former USSR that hoards nukes even if its economy really isn't much at 8th place and looking to drop to 9th soon being pasted by Canada. With a 5% gap and if growth rates for this year continue that will be next year. It might also fall out of top 10 in a few years with Italy and Brazil having much larger consistent growth as they are only 10% and 20% smaller, which if current trends continue would be 2-3 years for 10th and that again for 11th. I would bet that Russia falls out of top 10 in the 2030 if not before it.
So expanding UNSC to top 10 economies and investing heavily in Brazil, Italy and Canada might be a poison pill you could push onto Russia to kick them out of UNSC. But I doubt Russia would accept this but China might if it plans to improve relationship with India and Chinese support for giving India UNSC membership could do a lot.
And there are more countries with nukes now than then. Also, we hardly want to incentivize that to be what makes or breaks your international status or importance, but maybe that's just inevitable and where we're at.
Would adding more countries make it more effective? Seems to me the more vetoes there are, the less likely you can put together a resolution on any particular issue.
Exactly. It’s a bit of a MAD scenerio in that it will always exist so long as the security council members want the UN to work to their advantage.
I guess global unification or another world war would be the things that could break it up though
Or the breakup of any permanent member. Or the rise of a power that cannot be ignored. Or the escalation of war between permanent members.
All of the above, and a number of other possibilities, would lead to the end of the UNSC, at least in its current form.
Hence my usage of "long term". If you think nothing will change then sure, it's sustainable. I don't think that's very likely though. I think even now a lot has changed now. The UNSC kinda "works" because of super delicate balance.
The world's most populous country and the largest democracy is not represented. The world's 3rd/4th/5th largest economies are not represented. UNSC is a joke.
> The world's most populous country and the largest democracy is not represented.
Which also has a lot of nuclear warheads.
This is what I'm saying, the lines are arbitrary and as the relevance shifts from the victors of WWII to other parts of the world this will become even less sustainable.
They boycotted the UN due to the exclusion of the CCP. So without a hostile Veto, the UNSC had a successful vote to send forces into south korea during the korean war
Edit: i might be wrong, so feel free to correct me.
The USSR boycotted (iirc) the UNSC at the time, so they abstained from the vote. This allowed the US to pass a resolution for a UN intervention in Korea. The USSR fought for/supported North Korea, which might have gotten a swift victory had the USSR vetoed the resolution.
I‘m also pretty sure that the job of the UN is primarily to avoid absolute chaos breaking out, and not much else. I think people often misinterpret the UN as some sort of World Government 0.0, when in reality it‘s probably just meant as a pacifier so countries can‘t just do whatever they please:
The problem is, it's so outdated. The only great powers left are USA and China. China wasn't even a great power when it joined the security council. France and Great Britain are now dwarfed by other powers. Russia is only powerful thanks to their nukes, so another relic of past glory.
Also if all the great powers agree (which is needed for UN intervention) they could just agree to work together on an issue without the UN, nobody would stop them.
The USSR was boycotting the UN because the ROC was seated at the spot for China instead of the PRC. Therefore they missed the vote to send UN forces to South Korea to fight the North, which they could have vetoed. The Korean War was a UN vs North Korean War with a large international contingent.
It's in many cases also a theater for diplomatic venting and showcasing. It's not expected achieve amazing results, but it's good that the big players have a neutral forum where they can air their geopolitical greivances towards eachother on equal terms.
This is simply overlooking the fact that the UNSC was specifically created to allow the members to "police" their own spheres of influence. So to support stuff that is happening in Ukraine, or that is about to happen to the Republic of China.
It is not meant for the multilateral world we live in. It was made to avoid nuclear war between the two super powers of the cold war. This is why It doesn't work.
Read the ceasefire before you claim it's the moral stance.
It was a ceasefire only on Israel but did not require Hamas to release Israeli hostages or stop firing rockets at Israeli cities. It was presented on 27 October right when Israel began their counter invasion. Also another ceasefire that required Hamas to release Israeli hostages was shot down immediately by the same body.
The British and French veto was in actuality overturned by both the US and the USSR taking the same stance and threatening the two ex-power with interventions.
Will Security Council send the peacekeeping forces to rescue the hostages? Oh, silly me, they probably just forgot about their very existence! It's such a tiny and negligible thing, very easy to forget.
Peacekeepers can't even be tasked with something like that. They are not authorized to open fire unless fired on, so of course they can't be sent to storm the facilites of one sides of the conflict.
this is severely misleading as ther where multiple votes on 9 different solutions
and on multiple of those the US agreed but russia and or china vetoed
Israel have already counterattacked, and caused so much destruction that if even 5% of what they've done was motivated by revenge rather than pure pragmatism, they will be guilty of arguably a greater evil than even Hamas by having unnecessarily killed more civilians. More than half of the buildings in Gaza have already been destroyed or damaged badly enough to show up on satellite. So I don't think you need to be worried about the UN voting to restrict their ability to counterattack. That boat already sailed and is halfway around the world by now.
The issue is that you have to be absolutely certain that Israel is practically infallible, to know that none of the IDF are taking advantage of the situation to take revenge on Gazans as a whole. We have to be certain that all of the incidents where the wrong people were targeted were definitely accidents and exceptions than aren't being repeated outside of the limited reporting resulting from Israel refusing to allow foreign reporters to enter. You have to be very sure that the \>150,000 buildings that have been hit were legitimate military targets rather than hit out of revenge, despite being at least fifteen times as many as the number of Hamas members Israel claim to have killed. You also have to be certain that none of the people in the Israeli government expressing a desire to commit ethnic cleansing or genocide, or blaming the entire population have any influence over the conduct of the campaign, and that none of the people who do influence it share those views. Because like I said it only takes a tiny proportion of the conduct of Israel's campaign to be illegitimate for it to be worse than what Hamas did. Personally I am not certain of this at all.
That's a lot of words to cut excuses for hamas, who pretty much only conducts their combat through purposeful war crimes meant to confuse the IDF and make it look look like they're committing war crimes to the average person like you. You can not equate an actual military offensive, which is going to have civilians casualties because it's war, with the actions of a group who does not wear uniforms and treats civilians as human shields instead of using those tunnels as bomb shelters for them and also started the conflict by slaughtering concert goers, random motorists, and threw grenades into raid shelters.
>That's a lot of words to cut excuses for hamas
I haven't at any point made excuses for Hamas. Their actions were illegitimate because they targeted civilians and because as you say they do not follow international law when targeting the Israeli military.
>You can not equate an actual military offensive, which is going to have civilians casualties because it's war, with the actions of a group who does not wear uniforms and treats civilians as human shields instead of using those tunnels as bomb shelters for them and also started the conflict by slaughtering concert goers, random motorists, and threw grenades into raid shelters.
I can actually, quite easily. What I can do is consider how many civilians were killed without valid cause by Hamas (all of them), how many civilians were killed by Israel, and how many Israel may have killed by acting out of anger. I don't think Israel killed 20,000 people acting out of anger. I actually can believe that the number of civilians they killed was higher than justified because they were acting out of anger and chose targets with far less valid intelligence to suggest a military presence than they have in previous conflicts.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-09/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/the-israeli-army-has-dropped-the-restraint-in-gaza-and-data-shows-unprecedented-killing/0000018c-4cca-db23-ad9f-6cdae8ad0000
Then by simply taking the regular human view that every civilian life in every country has equal value, I can say that if the IDF has killed more civilians unnecessarily out of anger than Hamas killed in total, they've committed a greater act of evil.
You're assuming it's out of anger, which is not how evidence works and are tryjng to equate the actions of individual soldiers or units with institutional level war crimes. Also it's very clear hamas' casualty claims are ridiculous, it is not hard to send a 15 year old child soldier into combat with a rifle only to remove the rifle after death and claim he was a civilian child casualty afterwards because he's wearing jeans and a t-shirt. It's also very clear that the casualty figures are fudged based on the them being almost linear which does not match the spikes in intensity of groud operations or airstrikes and tend to show weird biases towards one group or the other. Finally even if the numbers are right that means Israel has only killed approx 1 civilian per 10 building sdmaged in an urban combat setting against combatants dressed as civilians, which is impressively low actually when looking at similar situations.
India famously tries to stay neutral and is largely see itself as largest country not directly aligned with the former Communist countries or Western ones but also generally aligns itself against Islamic world due to issues with Pakistan and its history of religious unrest e.g. its partition.
So to stay truly neutral it often just doesn't vote.
I am not Indian but there’s a few factors: India experienced lots of Islamic terrorism due to Pakistan and Pakistani funding and Israel is the most liked country in India. Also India and Israel work together on intel regarding Pakistan
India's position is a two state solution. Many believe Israel should get out of Gaza and the entirety of West Bank. But at the same time, the Arab states or UN should take responsibility and put an end to Palestinian terrorism.
India has had a relationship with Palestine for far longer than Israel. But now, it has good relations with both sides.
On the other hand, I feel like Indians are one of the few people who actually knows what Israelis face. After Iran fell to Islam, India was the battleground. The struggle between India and Islam has been going on for a millennium now, and has shaped the history, culture and political borders of the subcontinent. This makes many Indians empathetic towards Israelis.
India was also partitioned by muslims based on the ideology that muslims cannot coexist with anyone. In the words of the founder of Pakistan,
>Islam is not only a religious doctrine but also a realistic code of conduct in terms of every day and everything important in life: our history, our laws and our jurisprudence. In all these things, our outlook is not only fundamentally different but also opposed to Hindus.
Muslims went on to create the Islamic republic of Pakistan and then Bangladesh. While India remained secular.
India and Pakistan have fought 4 wars, all started by Pakistan. India has endured numerous terrorist attacks and fought Islamic extremism coming out of Pakistan and beyond.
We know the playbook of Islamic extremism and the part played by civilians, the mosques and their collaborators and propagandists in the West. We have seen it all play out in Kashmir. We know what happens on the day the Israeli state fails. We have seen it happen numerous times in our history and most recently in Kashmir to kashmiri pandits. The recent incursion by Hamas is a reminder of this brutality.
Because in 1947 the UN proposed partitions of India into India / Pakistan and Mandatory Palestine into Israel / Palestine. Same year.
Fighting still persists in Kashmir with unclear borders.
India is more likely to recognize that Palestinians actually keep fighting to take Israeli land back.
India was brutally invaded and colonized by muslim forces like the Uzbeks and Turks, the wounds of mediaeval terror would have healed had India not been partitioned ruthlessly by converted Muslims, following the independence and partition, Pakistan has done nothing but wage war on India, they have declared a thousand year war on India, they don't like Indians due to paganism etc. so it is natural that in India fanatic Islamic terrorism including killing civilians at a concert is NOT seen as a legitimate response to a colonizer.
The hell you mean India hates muslims...
India have 172 million muslims and more than 200k mosques
They are totally treated equal unlike other muslims countries where other religions always suffer
The problem is Pakistan and their terrorist activites
The OP said “Hamas has literally broken every ceasefire” which is blatantly false. Just because they broke this one doesn’t mean it’s a green light to spread misinformation
It's not "blatantly false", it's arguably false. The other side of the story is that Israel did an operation in a tunnel to prevent an imminent attack. You can believe that version or not believe it, but making one or the other dogma is not a good idea if you want clarity about the conflict.
Hamas had broken it several times during the 6 months cease fire as they kept on shooting rockets towards Israeli cities while it was one of the conditions of the cease fire.
And the Israeli raid was ro destroy a tunnel Hamas has dag into Israeli territory.
As someone who lives in Israel and hadn't had more then a year and a half without rockets falling near my house I call this bullshit
You should try to get more information on the subject
The US has stated they are all for a peacedeal when they give up the hostages they have also asked for Hanas to be condemed which the UN has not done either.
What the map fails to show is that the no vote wasn't against a ceasefire, it was against a ceasefire that didn't return all Israeli hostages Hamas kidnapped, another way to phrase it who is voting for allowing terrorists to keep raping innocent women they kidnapped?
The Problem with this UN vote is that it will only bind Israel, and we all see who always breaks the ceasefires in the history of this conflict - Hamas.
It also doesn't call for release of \~250 hostages that were still in Hamas hands.
Just release the hostages and get rid of Hamas.
Stop killing for religious beliefs.
End of story.
No? OK then this will continue like it has for decades and decades.
mhm. if i seem to remember there was a ceasefire on October 6th, but something happened on October 7th that broke that ceasefire. What ever could it be?
There was already was a ceasefire and Hamas broke. I'm pretty sure the group that wants a ceasefire the least is Hamas. Israel to me seems like they are willing to any length to try end Hamas by force which lets be honest will likely lead to tens of thousands more civilian deaths and I would bet good money it won't work.
I can see Israel going for another ceasefire but after the last one I think its unlikely to happen. However another ceasefire even if it only lasts days even if stated to expire after a fixed time would likely save so many lives.
A very misleading map. Israel is also for a ceasefire, if Hamas dismantles and returns all the hostages. "For" or "Against" a ceasefire without saying the details of it is worthless.
Just like annual UN General Assembly voting for the removal of the Cuban trade embargo, this voting on ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict will be an exercise of futility that Israel as a sovereign nation-state isn't mandated to abide with the UNGA voting results.
Israel is still gonna defend itself irrespective of this vote, and if I were Israeli I'd want my government to ignore any such votes and ensure my safety by any means necessary.
that was true once, not in today's age where virtually everybody can get information from the web and isnt reliant on how much their government censors the press. not that israel isnt going to try to salvage their image online
He's saying countries ruled by evil genocidal governments (i.e. Hamas) who start genocidal wars deserve to be bombed and defeated even when their citizens suffer.
Let's face it, UN voting means jack shit. What exactly are they going to do?? It's about as much use as a vote down at the local pub about whether Jaffa cakes are biscuits or cakes.
This was on 27th October, Canada abstained as the UN refused to add their amendment that called for the release of hostages instead of Israel just giving up and Hamas not having to do anything
I would not start a ceasfire with a terrorist leadership in gaza, kill them all and then we can go to the table and discuss what happens with the civillians that are in love with their terroristleaders from hamas.
Yes and no. Hamas is the government of Gaza and most Palestinians support their actions against Israel, but that doesn't make Palestinian civilians combatants.
Some of these votes are pretty interesting:
* Palau, despite being a Free Associated state with the United States like FSM and the Marshall Islands, voted to abstain on this motion.
* Tunisia, despite being an Arab nation, seems to also have abstained on this motion.
* Despite being coveted by China, some of the South Pacific nations seem to have voted *against* a ceasefire, which is interesting
This is a very misleading map.
There have been multiple votes on 9 different solutions.
The US was in favor of several of those solutions but Russia vetoed those.
When do you think Sri Lankan Civil War started? It has many "striking similarities" to Hamas--isreali conflict.
If you ask an average Tamil Hindu Sri Lankan, he would say it all started in 1948 which exploded in open war in 1983.
BUT
If you ask an average Sinhali Buddhist Sri Lankan, he would say that everything was all right until "without any reason or provocation" Tamil Hindu terrorists attacked Sri Lankan army in 1983 and started the Civil War.
In the "same manner" an average Muslim Palestinian would say that it all started in 1948 when Isreali force's "forcibly expelled at gun point" 7,00,000+ Palestinians from their homes by using the tactics of sword and fire which included general massacre's of entire village's as a matter of "undeclared official policy of Isreal" and the 7 Oct 2023 is "just another incident" in the "same chain of events".
BUT
If you ask an average Jewish Isreali in this regard then they would say that things were not good before 7 Oct 2023 but they certainly were not as bad as Palestinians have been "claiming" them to be and things became bad "only after" Hamas attacked Isreali citizens "without any reason or provocation".
Speaking of Hamas; Hamas was founded in 1987 because of the lack of any progress in a negotiated settlement of this issue between PLO and Isreal because Isreal "kept moving the goal posts" in its negotiations and was just "negotiating to negotiate" with ZERO intention of implementing its own obligations when it publicly kept on demanding that PLO must implement its obligations while simultaneously declaring that it saw no reason why Isreal itself should implement its own obligations. It was able to do that and get away with it because of blind american support for its actions and decisions.
Isreal initially tried to "use" Hamas as a "counterweight" against PLO but it "backfired".
In 2005, elections were held in Gaza Strip and West Bank which were declared "Free and Fair" even by USA.
Isreal "publicly threatened" the PEOPLE of these territories with "severe consequences" if they "dared to vote" for any candidate NOT "supported by Israel. But they went ahead and DEFIED Isreal and voted for candidates supported by Hamas.
Instead of accepting the results of "Free and Fair" elections and trying to work with the "elected govt" of Palestinian Territories, Isreal declared a "Military Seige/Blockade of Gaza Strip and West Bank and actively prevented the entry of everything from LIFE SAVING MEDICINES to food which "directly led to the conditions where even 10 year's old Palestinian children were forced to go for "amputation of limbs without anaesthesia".
(1) From 2005--2023, Isreal has kept a Crippling Military Seige of almost 2.2 million people just because the people living in "Isreali Occupied Territories & RULED by Military Administrator's" dared to defy "Isreali orders" to vote for the "candidates favoured by Israel" in elections held for Palestinian Authority.
(2) There have been case's where even 3 year's old Palestinian children have been "arrested" by Israeli force's for "throwing stones" on Isreali troops. This should give some idea regarding how life is for an average Palestinian in Israeli Occupied Territories.
(3) Palestinian children as young as 8 years old are "routinely tried" by Military Courts run by Israeli force's and are imprisoned in military prisons run by Israeli military. In almost all such cases the Palestinian child facing any charges is "routinely sentenced" with multiple year prison sentences where "torture and intentional medical neglect" of these children is "normal" and routinely leads to severe consequences including Palestinian children in Israeli military prisons going blind. In one documented case, a 13 year old Palestinian boy was blinded after his Israeli jailors "intentionally" prevented him from recieving the medicine's he was already taking for a medical issue. As usual, after the word got out and was picked up by the Press; Isreali govt spokesperson declared that, " they are looking into the matter and can not say anything about this case until the enquiry is over". You can bet your life on it that they would find out that this boy's Isreali captors are not guilty in any manner.
(4) Isreali settler's are well known for their violent attacks on Palestinians including torture and killings of children with full support of Israeli govt. In one documented case, a 13 year old Palestinian boy was was tied to the front of a truck with chains in a manner where his feet didn't touch the ground and was driven around for many hours without being stopped by any Israeli military or police personnel; leading to severe injuries to his upper body including arms which were almost torn out of their sockets. Is it possible that not even one Isreali police officer or soldier saw this incident in a society as heavily militarized as isreal?
(5) Almost 70% Isreali citizens today are openly in favour of "implementing the final solution" for the Palestinian Question/Problem and publicly calling for extermination of Palestinian people including children. Many cabinet ministers of the current Isreali govt have publicly called for extermination of Palestinian people, with ZERO CONSEQUENCES. If you keep their words and "switch" Israeli for Palestinian, then almost the entire Europe and USA would be up in arms against them and declaring them guilty of Genocide. But because it is Isreali's who are calling for extermination of Palestinian people therefore they don't really think it is Genocide because isreal can do no wrong.
(6) Any Isreali soldier or group of soldiers can "take over at will", the home of a Palestinian "indefinitely" by declaring that it is needed for operational reasons and either confine the home owner and his family in a small part of his house or even kick him out without any legal recourse available to the home owner.
Ultimately, a series of events unfortunately led to the 7 Oct 2023 attack by Hamas against Isreal.
If you are incharge of rescuing a group of hostages being kept in a high rise building or a village then will you "attack" that high rise building or village with artillery, aircraft and tanks to rescue the hostages? If not, why not? And if you do, then don't you think it really puts a question mark over your ability or real intentions regarding the "rescue" of those hostages? IF. Most or all of the hostages are killed in "trying to rescue them" by using these methods, then would you be justified in blaming the other side for their death's? I am a retired soldier and war veteran, so I do know a little bit regarding these situations and the pressure that comes with it
Who do you think is "lying OR stretching the truth OR at fault" in this case?
how i love people shouting ceasefire now againt israel, but the ones who allways rejects the same ceasefire (not to mention breaks it afterwards) is hamas.
if you favor ceasefire go to the one who wont accept it no matter what.
Germany came up with another idea, to have multiple but shorter humanitarian breaks instead of one ceasefire. They came up with this idea after talking to Israeli and PLO. Unfortunately lots of propaganda spread everywhere and claims Germany is against ceasefire. In general there is such a big propaganda problem, everybody lies about everyone.
Western countries do something: we don't want you here evil colonizers
Western countries don't do anything: you don't care about suffering because it's brown people
You can never win 😔
People complain about Palestine vs Israel conflict and when they finally decide to solve it themself, people complain.
This ceasefire voting is nothing more than virtue signaling.
Tunisia abstained from voting on the resolution because it labeled Hamas as a terrorist organization, whereas Tunisia views Hamas as a liberation movement.
Yeah a cease fire is gonna fix this. Both sides are fucking insane, but Hamas is literally ripping apart infrastructure to make weapons which will happen again, and again, if it doesn't get solved once and for all. The situation is fucking terrible, but a ceasefire is just gonna give Hamas a chance to rearm themselves and kill even more people. It won't fix a fucking thing.
Why the extra expansion of Europe ?
Also...think the only time I have seen some tiny islands in the Pacific have their names shown in three letters.
Almost makes it seems like idea was to make the ted islands seem as deserving of focus!
I can explain why Guatemala voted against it. That's because our former president was a son of bitch pseudo dictator who thought that by doing that by doing everything the US wanted he'll get away with everything he did, also at that time he was attempting a coup so he wanted to keep the attention away from him as much as he could.
Who couldn't be in favor of a ceasefire? I think this should apply to BOTH camps and now all arrows are going to Israel and that is wrong because the Palestinians are just as much the aggressor because of their October 7 massacre.
ok who is actually voting against ceasefire? People are dying in this war you know, if you support palestine the war is killing tons of civilians and if you support israel it's still people being killed
This UN vote was in the 27th of October.
It didn't call for releasing the \~250 hostages that were held at this date, makes sense why countries would vote against it.
What are you expecting from a country who's (back at the 27th) has 1200 people massacred, 250 people kidnapped to do?
Sit idle and wait for Hamas generosity?
At the time or this vote, yeah there was no chance for a ceasefire without the hostages released. Such a shitty vote too cause obviously that would be priority one for Israel.
Basically the US is putting the government of Israel and Hamas in the same position to accept a ceasefire. The government of Palestine is not attacking Israel, so how are they going to release hostages?
In the meanwhile, Palestine civilians are dying until no more Palestinian exists. How is that not genocide?
[удалено]
Just like peacekeeping forces would not be sent to Ukraine due to russia’s veto, or theoretically, to Taiwan due to China’s veto. UNSC is useless.
The UNSC is not supposed to be a just or a fair organisation. It's supposed to be the carrot for powerful nations to keep investing in the UN in general. Without UNSC, there will be no reason for China/Russia to stay in the UN.
I feel like people don’t realize that the reason the UN is often useless is because the only way the UN can exist is if all the great powers are fine with the UN. If the UN upsets any of them then they leave and the UN becomes redundant
Yes, the League of Nations failed because the great powers didn't have an incentive to stay in the organisation. Now, especially after the USSR's debacle with the Korean war UNSC resolution, they _have_ to stay in the council to make sure other powers can't levarage the UNSC to do things they don't want to happen
And the UN, or at least the UNSC, might fail because of this. I mean, giving 5 at the time "great powers" a veto power because they were the victors in WWII is pretty arbitrary in the long term, and probably not sustainable.
>WWII is pretty arbitrary in the long term, and probably not sustainable. I think it should transition to something like the 5 biggest economies + the rotating smaller nations. Problem is Russia is a shell of the former USSR that hoards nukes even if its economy really isn't much at 8th place and looking to drop to 9th soon being pasted by Canada. With a 5% gap and if growth rates for this year continue that will be next year. It might also fall out of top 10 in a few years with Italy and Brazil having much larger consistent growth as they are only 10% and 20% smaller, which if current trends continue would be 2-3 years for 10th and that again for 11th. I would bet that Russia falls out of top 10 in the 2030 if not before it. So expanding UNSC to top 10 economies and investing heavily in Brazil, Italy and Canada might be a poison pill you could push onto Russia to kick them out of UNSC. But I doubt Russia would accept this but China might if it plans to improve relationship with India and Chinese support for giving India UNSC membership could do a lot.
And there are more countries with nukes now than then. Also, we hardly want to incentivize that to be what makes or breaks your international status or importance, but maybe that's just inevitable and where we're at.
Would adding more countries make it more effective? Seems to me the more vetoes there are, the less likely you can put together a resolution on any particular issue.
Its been around and sort of working for over 70 years now, with no particular sign of it becoming unsustainable...
Exactly. It’s a bit of a MAD scenerio in that it will always exist so long as the security council members want the UN to work to their advantage. I guess global unification or another world war would be the things that could break it up though
Or the breakup of any permanent member. Or the rise of a power that cannot be ignored. Or the escalation of war between permanent members. All of the above, and a number of other possibilities, would lead to the end of the UNSC, at least in its current form.
The USSR broke up into fifteen pieces, yet the UNSC remained somewhat intact.
Hence my usage of "long term". If you think nothing will change then sure, it's sustainable. I don't think that's very likely though. I think even now a lot has changed now. The UNSC kinda "works" because of super delicate balance.
The world's most populous country and the largest democracy is not represented. The world's 3rd/4th/5th largest economies are not represented. UNSC is a joke.
> The world's most populous country and the largest democracy is not represented. Which also has a lot of nuclear warheads. This is what I'm saying, the lines are arbitrary and as the relevance shifts from the victors of WWII to other parts of the world this will become even less sustainable.
Internally, nobody gives a flying f. Same with WEF. It's just one big world fair.
Which is why I don't get why people treat the WEF as sort of an all powerful cabal that decides everything
Could you elaborate on the USSR's debacle with the korean war UNSC resolution?
They boycotted the UN due to the exclusion of the CCP. So without a hostile Veto, the UNSC had a successful vote to send forces into south korea during the korean war Edit: i might be wrong, so feel free to correct me.
The USSR boycotted (iirc) the UNSC at the time, so they abstained from the vote. This allowed the US to pass a resolution for a UN intervention in Korea. The USSR fought for/supported North Korea, which might have gotten a swift victory had the USSR vetoed the resolution.
they didn't abstain, but weren't even present because of the boycott
I‘m also pretty sure that the job of the UN is primarily to avoid absolute chaos breaking out, and not much else. I think people often misinterpret the UN as some sort of World Government 0.0, when in reality it‘s probably just meant as a pacifier so countries can‘t just do whatever they please:
The problem is, it's so outdated. The only great powers left are USA and China. China wasn't even a great power when it joined the security council. France and Great Britain are now dwarfed by other powers. Russia is only powerful thanks to their nukes, so another relic of past glory.
Also if all the great powers agree (which is needed for UN intervention) they could just agree to work together on an issue without the UN, nobody would stop them.
[удалено]
The USSR was boycotting the UN because the ROC was seated at the spot for China instead of the PRC. Therefore they missed the vote to send UN forces to South Korea to fight the North, which they could have vetoed. The Korean War was a UN vs North Korean War with a large international contingent.
It's in many cases also a theater for diplomatic venting and showcasing. It's not expected achieve amazing results, but it's good that the big players have a neutral forum where they can air their geopolitical greivances towards eachother on equal terms.
>there will be no reason to stay in the UN. FTFY, already happened.
This is simply overlooking the fact that the UNSC was specifically created to allow the members to "police" their own spheres of influence. So to support stuff that is happening in Ukraine, or that is about to happen to the Republic of China.
It is not meant for the multilateral world we live in. It was made to avoid nuclear war between the two super powers of the cold war. This is why It doesn't work.
Read the ceasefire before you claim it's the moral stance. It was a ceasefire only on Israel but did not require Hamas to release Israeli hostages or stop firing rockets at Israeli cities. It was presented on 27 October right when Israel began their counter invasion. Also another ceasefire that required Hamas to release Israeli hostages was shot down immediately by the same body.
Honestly I’m not sure if the peacekeepers would be even help, maybe it would even worsen the situation
The British and French veto in the Suez crisis was overturned by the General Assembly.
The British and French veto was in actuality overturned by both the US and the USSR taking the same stance and threatening the two ex-power with interventions.
Doesn't that was realisation for UK and France that their colonial power has weakened a lot in the world stage.
Will Security Council send the peacekeeping forces to rescue the hostages? Oh, silly me, they probably just forgot about their very existence! It's such a tiny and negligible thing, very easy to forget.
Peacekeepers can't even be tasked with something like that. They are not authorized to open fire unless fired on, so of course they can't be sent to storm the facilites of one sides of the conflict.
Depends how UN creates rules for peacekeepers, Korean war was UN intervention as well
Paraguay: war for the war god
this is severely misleading as ther where multiple votes on 9 different solutions and on multiple of those the US agreed but russia and or china vetoed
[удалено]
Israel have already counterattacked, and caused so much destruction that if even 5% of what they've done was motivated by revenge rather than pure pragmatism, they will be guilty of arguably a greater evil than even Hamas by having unnecessarily killed more civilians. More than half of the buildings in Gaza have already been destroyed or damaged badly enough to show up on satellite. So I don't think you need to be worried about the UN voting to restrict their ability to counterattack. That boat already sailed and is halfway around the world by now.
[удалено]
How? By killing everyone there? And americans wonder why everyone hates them.
The issue is that you have to be absolutely certain that Israel is practically infallible, to know that none of the IDF are taking advantage of the situation to take revenge on Gazans as a whole. We have to be certain that all of the incidents where the wrong people were targeted were definitely accidents and exceptions than aren't being repeated outside of the limited reporting resulting from Israel refusing to allow foreign reporters to enter. You have to be very sure that the \>150,000 buildings that have been hit were legitimate military targets rather than hit out of revenge, despite being at least fifteen times as many as the number of Hamas members Israel claim to have killed. You also have to be certain that none of the people in the Israeli government expressing a desire to commit ethnic cleansing or genocide, or blaming the entire population have any influence over the conduct of the campaign, and that none of the people who do influence it share those views. Because like I said it only takes a tiny proportion of the conduct of Israel's campaign to be illegitimate for it to be worse than what Hamas did. Personally I am not certain of this at all.
That's a lot of words to cut excuses for hamas, who pretty much only conducts their combat through purposeful war crimes meant to confuse the IDF and make it look look like they're committing war crimes to the average person like you. You can not equate an actual military offensive, which is going to have civilians casualties because it's war, with the actions of a group who does not wear uniforms and treats civilians as human shields instead of using those tunnels as bomb shelters for them and also started the conflict by slaughtering concert goers, random motorists, and threw grenades into raid shelters.
>That's a lot of words to cut excuses for hamas I haven't at any point made excuses for Hamas. Their actions were illegitimate because they targeted civilians and because as you say they do not follow international law when targeting the Israeli military. >You can not equate an actual military offensive, which is going to have civilians casualties because it's war, with the actions of a group who does not wear uniforms and treats civilians as human shields instead of using those tunnels as bomb shelters for them and also started the conflict by slaughtering concert goers, random motorists, and threw grenades into raid shelters. I can actually, quite easily. What I can do is consider how many civilians were killed without valid cause by Hamas (all of them), how many civilians were killed by Israel, and how many Israel may have killed by acting out of anger. I don't think Israel killed 20,000 people acting out of anger. I actually can believe that the number of civilians they killed was higher than justified because they were acting out of anger and chose targets with far less valid intelligence to suggest a military presence than they have in previous conflicts. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-09/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/the-israeli-army-has-dropped-the-restraint-in-gaza-and-data-shows-unprecedented-killing/0000018c-4cca-db23-ad9f-6cdae8ad0000 Then by simply taking the regular human view that every civilian life in every country has equal value, I can say that if the IDF has killed more civilians unnecessarily out of anger than Hamas killed in total, they've committed a greater act of evil.
You're assuming it's out of anger, which is not how evidence works and are tryjng to equate the actions of individual soldiers or units with institutional level war crimes. Also it's very clear hamas' casualty claims are ridiculous, it is not hard to send a 15 year old child soldier into combat with a rifle only to remove the rifle after death and claim he was a civilian child casualty afterwards because he's wearing jeans and a t-shirt. It's also very clear that the casualty figures are fudged based on the them being almost linear which does not match the spikes in intensity of groud operations or airstrikes and tend to show weird biases towards one group or the other. Finally even if the numbers are right that means Israel has only killed approx 1 civilian per 10 building sdmaged in an urban combat setting against combatants dressed as civilians, which is impressively low actually when looking at similar situations.
Just as the russia-ukraine war will destroy ukrainian nazis /s
I mean I guess scorched earth policy on the whole fucking country would indeed destroy Hamas... as well as fucking everything
[удалено]
Such a stupid statement
[удалено]
Israel has for the most part obliged with UN resolutions - they will obviously not stop fighting when getting fired at
[удалено]
Not from india but my guess is because israel and india has good relaions
India famously tries to stay neutral and is largely see itself as largest country not directly aligned with the former Communist countries or Western ones but also generally aligns itself against Islamic world due to issues with Pakistan and its history of religious unrest e.g. its partition. So to stay truly neutral it often just doesn't vote.
Israel helps India when they needed during India-Pak war.
I am not Indian but there’s a few factors: India experienced lots of Islamic terrorism due to Pakistan and Pakistani funding and Israel is the most liked country in India. Also India and Israel work together on intel regarding Pakistan
India's position is a two state solution. Many believe Israel should get out of Gaza and the entirety of West Bank. But at the same time, the Arab states or UN should take responsibility and put an end to Palestinian terrorism. India has had a relationship with Palestine for far longer than Israel. But now, it has good relations with both sides. On the other hand, I feel like Indians are one of the few people who actually knows what Israelis face. After Iran fell to Islam, India was the battleground. The struggle between India and Islam has been going on for a millennium now, and has shaped the history, culture and political borders of the subcontinent. This makes many Indians empathetic towards Israelis. India was also partitioned by muslims based on the ideology that muslims cannot coexist with anyone. In the words of the founder of Pakistan, >Islam is not only a religious doctrine but also a realistic code of conduct in terms of every day and everything important in life: our history, our laws and our jurisprudence. In all these things, our outlook is not only fundamentally different but also opposed to Hindus. Muslims went on to create the Islamic republic of Pakistan and then Bangladesh. While India remained secular. India and Pakistan have fought 4 wars, all started by Pakistan. India has endured numerous terrorist attacks and fought Islamic extremism coming out of Pakistan and beyond. We know the playbook of Islamic extremism and the part played by civilians, the mosques and their collaborators and propagandists in the West. We have seen it all play out in Kashmir. We know what happens on the day the Israeli state fails. We have seen it happen numerous times in our history and most recently in Kashmir to kashmiri pandits. The recent incursion by Hamas is a reminder of this brutality.
India needs Israel's intel for its own security with Pakistan and China as our neighbours.
Because India is threatened by Muslims as well
India wants to piss off no one so it can work with everyone for it’s own benefit till it’s a superpower.
Because in 1947 the UN proposed partitions of India into India / Pakistan and Mandatory Palestine into Israel / Palestine. Same year. Fighting still persists in Kashmir with unclear borders. India is more likely to recognize that Palestinians actually keep fighting to take Israeli land back.
India was brutally invaded and colonized by muslim forces like the Uzbeks and Turks, the wounds of mediaeval terror would have healed had India not been partitioned ruthlessly by converted Muslims, following the independence and partition, Pakistan has done nothing but wage war on India, they have declared a thousand year war on India, they don't like Indians due to paganism etc. so it is natural that in India fanatic Islamic terrorism including killing civilians at a concert is NOT seen as a legitimate response to a colonizer.
Indian here. So we do actually support Palestine as well as Israel. And we actually voted in favour of cease fire recently, this map is probably old.
India is pro Israel because they both hate Muslims. Israel because of Palestine and India because of Pakistan
The hell you mean India hates muslims... India have 172 million muslims and more than 200k mosques They are totally treated equal unlike other muslims countries where other religions always suffer The problem is Pakistan and their terrorist activites
[удалено]
There was a long term ceasefire before 7/10, Hamas broke it, Hamas has literally broken every ceasefire, but we expect this time it’ll be different?
But the guys who blocked a highway in Cleveland said it would though?
Literally the very first ceasefire between Hamas and Israel was broken by Israel in 2008
And the most recent one was broken on 7th October. So?
The OP said “Hamas has literally broken every ceasefire” which is blatantly false. Just because they broke this one doesn’t mean it’s a green light to spread misinformation
It's not "blatantly false", it's arguably false. The other side of the story is that Israel did an operation in a tunnel to prevent an imminent attack. You can believe that version or not believe it, but making one or the other dogma is not a good idea if you want clarity about the conflict.
Sure, that’s fair
Hamas had broken it several times during the 6 months cease fire as they kept on shooting rockets towards Israeli cities while it was one of the conditions of the cease fire. And the Israeli raid was ro destroy a tunnel Hamas has dag into Israeli territory.
As someone who lives in Israel and hadn't had more then a year and a half without rockets falling near my house I call this bullshit You should try to get more information on the subject
The US has stated they are all for a peacedeal when they give up the hostages they have also asked for Hanas to be condemed which the UN has not done either.
What the map fails to show is that the no vote wasn't against a ceasefire, it was against a ceasefire that didn't return all Israeli hostages Hamas kidnapped, another way to phrase it who is voting for allowing terrorists to keep raping innocent women they kidnapped?
This guy gets it It's weird how this is seems controversial to some
The Problem with this UN vote is that it will only bind Israel, and we all see who always breaks the ceasefires in the history of this conflict - Hamas. It also doesn't call for release of \~250 hostages that were still in Hamas hands.
UN votes don’t usually bind anyone, most of them don’t carry any real consequences.
Just release the hostages and get rid of Hamas. Stop killing for religious beliefs. End of story. No? OK then this will continue like it has for decades and decades.
mhm. if i seem to remember there was a ceasefire on October 6th, but something happened on October 7th that broke that ceasefire. What ever could it be?
[удалено]
It's like punching someone in the face and then yelling "Truce!" right after.
There was already was a ceasefire and Hamas broke. I'm pretty sure the group that wants a ceasefire the least is Hamas. Israel to me seems like they are willing to any length to try end Hamas by force which lets be honest will likely lead to tens of thousands more civilian deaths and I would bet good money it won't work. I can see Israel going for another ceasefire but after the last one I think its unlikely to happen. However another ceasefire even if it only lasts days even if stated to expire after a fixed time would likely save so many lives.
The whole chart should be in the same colour and the legend says "performative pointlessness"
A very misleading map. Israel is also for a ceasefire, if Hamas dismantles and returns all the hostages. "For" or "Against" a ceasefire without saying the details of it is worthless.
A ceasefire that does not order the return of the hostages is meaningless.
Just like annual UN General Assembly voting for the removal of the Cuban trade embargo, this voting on ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict will be an exercise of futility that Israel as a sovereign nation-state isn't mandated to abide with the UNGA voting results.
This is from October 2023…
Israel is still gonna defend itself irrespective of this vote, and if I were Israeli I'd want my government to ignore any such votes and ensure my safety by any means necessary.
[удалено]
like killing tens of thousands by bombing and starvation?
More were killed in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Tragic but unavoidable, considering their totalitarian, genocidal regimes.
are you saying its ok for israel to kill indiscriminatly because 70 years ago they were subject to genocide
It's OK for Israel to defend itself. Hamas has tortured and murdered civilians, it is OK to defend oneself by any means necessary.
it stopped being about self defense when israel dropped bombs on civilians, this is a bloody revenge mission, nothing else
If it will end with Hamas' destruction, history books will, much like in the case of WW2, say it was justified.
that was true once, not in today's age where virtually everybody can get information from the web and isnt reliant on how much their government censors the press. not that israel isnt going to try to salvage their image online
Schoolbooks still are the basis of how history is taught in school.
He's saying countries ruled by evil genocidal governments (i.e. Hamas) who start genocidal wars deserve to be bombed and defeated even when their citizens suffer.
Getting hostages back home from hell.
Let's face it, UN voting means jack shit. What exactly are they going to do?? It's about as much use as a vote down at the local pub about whether Jaffa cakes are biscuits or cakes.
Remember, practically every nation on earth voted to make food a right, and since that very day, not a single person on earth has starved
I literally can't tell if you are joking or not. God, my expectations of the human race are so low. Curse you reddit!
Canada. You giant pussy.
This was on 27th October, Canada abstained as the UN refused to add their amendment that called for the release of hostages instead of Israel just giving up and Hamas not having to do anything
TIL
They’re quite a small pussy actually, they just have a huge amount of land.
Exactly. They should support the US and vote no as well
I would not start a ceasfire with a terrorist leadership in gaza, kill them all and then we can go to the table and discuss what happens with the civillians that are in love with their terroristleaders from hamas.
Israel-Hamas war not Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There’s a huge difference
Yes and no. Hamas is the government of Gaza and most Palestinians support their actions against Israel, but that doesn't make Palestinian civilians combatants.
[удалено]
They’re not mutually exclusive. Is any of this news to you?
[удалено]
And you just told me how much you actually know about Hamas, Gaza Strip, Palestine and October 7th.
I’m not sure if that’s a compliment or an insult
When the conflict in question results in 7000 children dying I think it’s fair to say this isn’t just a Hamas-Israel thing
Luckily the US is here to veto any nonsense ceasefire call that doesn't return the hostages. Ceasefire will occur when hostages are home
r/phantomborders Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser, unsern guten Kaiser Franz!
Some of these votes are pretty interesting: * Palau, despite being a Free Associated state with the United States like FSM and the Marshall Islands, voted to abstain on this motion. * Tunisia, despite being an Arab nation, seems to also have abstained on this motion. * Despite being coveted by China, some of the South Pacific nations seem to have voted *against* a ceasefire, which is interesting
All of China's neighbors except North Korea fear its imperialist ambitions
Ceasefire would be great, as long as Hamas unconditionally surrenders.
No hostages = No food = No ceasefire Palestinians need to release the hostages, unconditionally surrender, and it all ends.
UN general assembly votes are a popularity contest circle jerk with 50 Muslim countries who face no implications for virtue signaling.
This is a very misleading map. There have been multiple votes on 9 different solutions. The US was in favor of several of those solutions but Russia vetoed those.
When do you think Sri Lankan Civil War started? It has many "striking similarities" to Hamas--isreali conflict. If you ask an average Tamil Hindu Sri Lankan, he would say it all started in 1948 which exploded in open war in 1983. BUT If you ask an average Sinhali Buddhist Sri Lankan, he would say that everything was all right until "without any reason or provocation" Tamil Hindu terrorists attacked Sri Lankan army in 1983 and started the Civil War. In the "same manner" an average Muslim Palestinian would say that it all started in 1948 when Isreali force's "forcibly expelled at gun point" 7,00,000+ Palestinians from their homes by using the tactics of sword and fire which included general massacre's of entire village's as a matter of "undeclared official policy of Isreal" and the 7 Oct 2023 is "just another incident" in the "same chain of events". BUT If you ask an average Jewish Isreali in this regard then they would say that things were not good before 7 Oct 2023 but they certainly were not as bad as Palestinians have been "claiming" them to be and things became bad "only after" Hamas attacked Isreali citizens "without any reason or provocation". Speaking of Hamas; Hamas was founded in 1987 because of the lack of any progress in a negotiated settlement of this issue between PLO and Isreal because Isreal "kept moving the goal posts" in its negotiations and was just "negotiating to negotiate" with ZERO intention of implementing its own obligations when it publicly kept on demanding that PLO must implement its obligations while simultaneously declaring that it saw no reason why Isreal itself should implement its own obligations. It was able to do that and get away with it because of blind american support for its actions and decisions. Isreal initially tried to "use" Hamas as a "counterweight" against PLO but it "backfired". In 2005, elections were held in Gaza Strip and West Bank which were declared "Free and Fair" even by USA. Isreal "publicly threatened" the PEOPLE of these territories with "severe consequences" if they "dared to vote" for any candidate NOT "supported by Israel. But they went ahead and DEFIED Isreal and voted for candidates supported by Hamas. Instead of accepting the results of "Free and Fair" elections and trying to work with the "elected govt" of Palestinian Territories, Isreal declared a "Military Seige/Blockade of Gaza Strip and West Bank and actively prevented the entry of everything from LIFE SAVING MEDICINES to food which "directly led to the conditions where even 10 year's old Palestinian children were forced to go for "amputation of limbs without anaesthesia". (1) From 2005--2023, Isreal has kept a Crippling Military Seige of almost 2.2 million people just because the people living in "Isreali Occupied Territories & RULED by Military Administrator's" dared to defy "Isreali orders" to vote for the "candidates favoured by Israel" in elections held for Palestinian Authority. (2) There have been case's where even 3 year's old Palestinian children have been "arrested" by Israeli force's for "throwing stones" on Isreali troops. This should give some idea regarding how life is for an average Palestinian in Israeli Occupied Territories. (3) Palestinian children as young as 8 years old are "routinely tried" by Military Courts run by Israeli force's and are imprisoned in military prisons run by Israeli military. In almost all such cases the Palestinian child facing any charges is "routinely sentenced" with multiple year prison sentences where "torture and intentional medical neglect" of these children is "normal" and routinely leads to severe consequences including Palestinian children in Israeli military prisons going blind. In one documented case, a 13 year old Palestinian boy was blinded after his Israeli jailors "intentionally" prevented him from recieving the medicine's he was already taking for a medical issue. As usual, after the word got out and was picked up by the Press; Isreali govt spokesperson declared that, " they are looking into the matter and can not say anything about this case until the enquiry is over". You can bet your life on it that they would find out that this boy's Isreali captors are not guilty in any manner. (4) Isreali settler's are well known for their violent attacks on Palestinians including torture and killings of children with full support of Israeli govt. In one documented case, a 13 year old Palestinian boy was was tied to the front of a truck with chains in a manner where his feet didn't touch the ground and was driven around for many hours without being stopped by any Israeli military or police personnel; leading to severe injuries to his upper body including arms which were almost torn out of their sockets. Is it possible that not even one Isreali police officer or soldier saw this incident in a society as heavily militarized as isreal? (5) Almost 70% Isreali citizens today are openly in favour of "implementing the final solution" for the Palestinian Question/Problem and publicly calling for extermination of Palestinian people including children. Many cabinet ministers of the current Isreali govt have publicly called for extermination of Palestinian people, with ZERO CONSEQUENCES. If you keep their words and "switch" Israeli for Palestinian, then almost the entire Europe and USA would be up in arms against them and declaring them guilty of Genocide. But because it is Isreali's who are calling for extermination of Palestinian people therefore they don't really think it is Genocide because isreal can do no wrong. (6) Any Isreali soldier or group of soldiers can "take over at will", the home of a Palestinian "indefinitely" by declaring that it is needed for operational reasons and either confine the home owner and his family in a small part of his house or even kick him out without any legal recourse available to the home owner. Ultimately, a series of events unfortunately led to the 7 Oct 2023 attack by Hamas against Isreal. If you are incharge of rescuing a group of hostages being kept in a high rise building or a village then will you "attack" that high rise building or village with artillery, aircraft and tanks to rescue the hostages? If not, why not? And if you do, then don't you think it really puts a question mark over your ability or real intentions regarding the "rescue" of those hostages? IF. Most or all of the hostages are killed in "trying to rescue them" by using these methods, then would you be justified in blaming the other side for their death's? I am a retired soldier and war veteran, so I do know a little bit regarding these situations and the pressure that comes with it Who do you think is "lying OR stretching the truth OR at fault" in this case?
how i love people shouting ceasefire now againt israel, but the ones who allways rejects the same ceasefire (not to mention breaks it afterwards) is hamas. if you favor ceasefire go to the one who wont accept it no matter what.
Free israel, Hamas need to to be eliminated
Germany came up with another idea, to have multiple but shorter humanitarian breaks instead of one ceasefire. They came up with this idea after talking to Israeli and PLO. Unfortunately lots of propaganda spread everywhere and claims Germany is against ceasefire. In general there is such a big propaganda problem, everybody lies about everyone.
Is there any head of state or government anywhere with the courage to demand that Hamas surrender unconditionally in order to end the war?
Western countries complaining of war refugees from Middle East Also western countries whenever there's war they're funding in middle east:
Western countries do something: we don't want you here evil colonizers Western countries don't do anything: you don't care about suffering because it's brown people You can never win 😔
I don't recall going against ceasefire and funding Israeli military is simply 'doing something' It doesn't get more direct than this
Exactly, then they’ll go cry about new immigrants on the news
People complain about Palestine vs Israel conflict and when they finally decide to solve it themself, people complain. This ceasefire voting is nothing more than virtue signaling.
Hamas should end the war permanently and surrender
Tunisia abstained from voting on the resolution because it labeled Hamas as a terrorist organization, whereas Tunisia views Hamas as a liberation movement.
That’s why Tunisia is going downhill super fast. That’s crazy
The ones in favor are terrorists supporters how can you let hamas stay in power and ruin the lifes of Israelis and Palestinians
Yeah a cease fire is gonna fix this. Both sides are fucking insane, but Hamas is literally ripping apart infrastructure to make weapons which will happen again, and again, if it doesn't get solved once and for all. The situation is fucking terrible, but a ceasefire is just gonna give Hamas a chance to rearm themselves and kill even more people. It won't fix a fucking thing.
Shame on my country for abstaining.
Why the extra expansion of Europe ? Also...think the only time I have seen some tiny islands in the Pacific have their names shown in three letters. Almost makes it seems like idea was to make the ted islands seem as deserving of focus!
Mildly Austria-Hungary
For those wondering what PRY in South America is Paraguay.
don’t worry guys the UN is clearly working like it is meant to
PNG: Against OUR GREATEST ENDEVOURS ARE TO BE THE ONLY COUNTRY STARTING WITH P
Alot has changed since October
Why are all the islands pro israel
The US just wants controversy free land they can buy. Just look at their own.
Would be interesting to see what percentage of the world's population each of those three stances represent.
But Hamas doesn’t want a ceasefire. I don’t understand!? Does a ceasefire force Hamas too?
palestine has lost all rights for a state
Venezuela can't even vote but Oceanían islands with less than 200,000 population can?
A ceasefire is not enough. Israel is an illegitimate state and must be dismantled.
Nice job Paraguay!
America and Israel openly committing genocide in Gaza
I can explain why Guatemala voted against it. That's because our former president was a son of bitch pseudo dictator who thought that by doing that by doing everything the US wanted he'll get away with everything he did, also at that time he was attempting a coup so he wanted to keep the attention away from him as much as he could.
Oh boy I do hope the commentsection under this post about a current political topic will be friendly and wholesome...
Who couldn't be in favor of a ceasefire? I think this should apply to BOTH camps and now all arrows are going to Israel and that is wrong because the Palestinians are just as much the aggressor because of their October 7 massacre.
Ah yes. Ceasefire. The same ceasefire that hamas broke like a dozen times already. That ceasefire
As if Israel didn't do the same by continuing their push during this "ceasefire". Both sides have disrespected the ceasefire, so both aren't innocent.
How many "ceasefires" has there been now? They seem not to hold for very long. :P
ok who is actually voting against ceasefire? People are dying in this war you know, if you support palestine the war is killing tons of civilians and if you support israel it's still people being killed
This UN vote was in the 27th of October. It didn't call for releasing the \~250 hostages that were held at this date, makes sense why countries would vote against it.
Hostages. Who will rescue them if a ceasefire is brokered without releasing them?
[удалено]
What are you expecting from a country who's (back at the 27th) has 1200 people massacred, 250 people kidnapped to do? Sit idle and wait for Hamas generosity?
Account 1 year old,first comment 2 hours ago an posting karma farming post,I wonder who can be behind all this
Proud to be from a yellow country instead of green
why there's so much disgusting zionists in this comment section
you're either against or abstain, there are no other choices.
At the time or this vote, yeah there was no chance for a ceasefire without the hostages released. Such a shitty vote too cause obviously that would be priority one for Israel.
No, that’s why there’s other voting choices. Stop being wrong.
Basically the US is putting the government of Israel and Hamas in the same position to accept a ceasefire. The government of Palestine is not attacking Israel, so how are they going to release hostages? In the meanwhile, Palestine civilians are dying until no more Palestinian exists. How is that not genocide?