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 57 points 2 months 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 80 points 2 months 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.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 52 points 2 months 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.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 4 points 2 months 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.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months 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 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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

[–] filister@lemmy.world 43 points 2 months 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.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months 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.

[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 months 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.