• febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Nothing wrong with that. It’s a good way to keep accountability and see where every country stands.

      • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        And now China is condemning it. Like, wtf. I honestly don’t know why we are blocking U.N. action on this. It’s brazenly pro-ethnic cleansing. It’s not like there’s wiggle room to debate, there’s no room. It’s just plainly a mass killing of a minority population that was already living under apartheid conditions.

        Are our political leaders just religious enough to quake in fear at the thought of angering their abrahamic diety? Or is this confirmation that there really IS a powerful zionist cabal that can manipulate US foreign policy?

        I mean, both are conspiratorial stretches, but wtf else could biden hang this decision on?

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      If they didn’t veto it what would happen? Is there an article like NATO that would stipulate that the UN counties would go to war… I didn’t think there was. So I am unsure if would have any change.

      • Muehe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Resolutions made by the UN security council (which this would have been) can be enforced through the UN peacekeeping mission (aka the blue helmets) by stationing UN troops along the contact line to prevent hostilities from resuming. This has had mixed success in the past, there is actually a peacekeeping mission stationed right now on the Israel/Lebanon border which hasn’t prevented either side from shooting at each other after the October 7 attack.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s good to know. So does that just require a majority vote? (Which if this wasn’t vetoed would have been a landslide). Or does it require some other percentage?

          • outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            UN general assembly majority vote, but security council, the permanent members all need to agree as even one nay is a veto.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              So that would mean if the U.S. eventually doesn’t veto it, Russia might as it has clearly been to their benefit.

              What a stupid world we live in.

      • snake_case_guy@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The UN is not a military defense organisation la NATO. It has military efforts, but they are all Pacific in the sense that they don’t take part and only help the civilian population (e.g.: running medical and food supplies, or protecting hospitals, etc.)

        The UN could go for economic and political sanctions, or try to move this in the Hague Courts in case the request goes unheard.