The United Nations General Assembly voted 124-14 on Wednesday to strip Israel of the right to self-defense in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.
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.
Why list a select 15 abstainers in the summary rather than the 14 voting against? Besides the obvious ones (Israel, US, Czechia), there’s Hungary, Argentina, Paraguay, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Palau, Nauru, Malawi, Tuvalu, Tonga and Micronesia.
Why do all the Polynesian countries support Israel so strongly?
They nearly always follow USA in voting, so Israel gets supported indirectly.
Cheap votes to buy or bully. Simply too poor to afford a conscience.
The COFA states are very strongly aligned with the US and pretty much always vote with them. I don’t know much about, say, Tonga, but I’m guessing it’s a way of signaling cooperation to the US as well.
Besides the obvious Genocide Joe administration countries like Palau, Tuvalu, and Micronesia do not evoke much significance.
Rather I found listing the more mainstream countries still silently supporting israel and refusing to condemn their obvious violation of international law more interesting.
On closer consideration Hungary might be of relevance, since they are allegedly responsible for the recent israeli supply chain terror attack on Lebanon.
Palau, Tuvalu, and Micronesia do not evoke much significance
Well, that’s why I kinda sorted the list by “relevance”. Still, you should at least mention top 5-6 opposers if you’re going to bother with any abstainers.
So we’re back to genociding Israel again? I feel like no one has a plan that isn’t at least a little genocide.
My slopes aren’t as slippery, where did you buy yours? I get why you said that, given the tumultuous nature surrounding Israel since it’s founding in the 1940’s, but the Arab nations said they would cease aggression when Israel did. Perhaps Israel having it’s sticks taken away is a step towards a peaceful Middle-East?
Hamas has already agreed to no longer govern the Gaza Strip, as long as Palestinians receive liberation and a unified government can take place.
During the current war, Hamas officials have said that the group does not want to return to ruling Gaza and that it advocates for forming a government of technocrats to be agreed upon by the various Palestinian factions. That government would then prepare for elections in Gaza and the West Bank, with the intention of forming a unified government.
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
Sources
Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ
The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.
- Avi Shlaim
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
Hamas officials should be held accountable for all war crimes committed, same as all Israeli officials. That said, there are many parallels between the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and Gaza.
In the Shadow of the Holocaust by Masha Gessen, the situation in Gaza is compared to the Warsaw Ghettos. The comparison was also made by a Palestinian poet who was later killed by an Israeli airstrike. Adi Callai, an Israeli, has also written on the parallels in his article The Gaza Ghetto Uprising and expanded upon in his corresponding video
Ploutocide.
Why is Czechia obvious?
It is possible none of us will live to see Czechia vote against the interest of Israel as all parties support it and there is pretty much no organized pro-Palestine movement. Israel says we’re their top partners in the eastern hemisphere, which means a lot because most countries are in the eastern hemisphere, including itself. At least, aid toward them is not nearly as popular among politicians and citizens as for Ukraine (we have a sizable, well-behaved Ukrainian minority already and took the most refugees per capita at the height of the crisis).
As for why pretty much every politician is either oblivious or bootlicking Israel: see my comment under a post about the shredder escapade 4 months ago
Thank you for the explanation! Such a shame that anti-Zionism is so often conflated with antisemitism
What’s funny is that lots of people outside Prague are racist and most of them make no effort to hide it. Our nation very much prides itself in dark humor and very few topics are taboo, we even have racial and Auschwitz jokes. However, most people are oblivious to what’s happening in the area so even if you made a really good point for Palestine and composed it into a joke, it’s not going to resonate with any audience. Maybe university students (though a great deal of them are pro-Israel so you might get cringey faces and boos).
“Rights” can only be taken away by force, if there is no method to ensure compliance, this is yet another meaningless resolution.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
Russia and the US are involved because the other half of the UNs purpose is to keep them both from nuking shit.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
What is the point of voting, especially veto, if it’s all just voicing complaints?
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.
So about as useful as us here as far as getting anything to actually happen :(
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.
It’s not self defense when they’re the ones attacking.
deleted by creator
It was never about self defence.
Ever since 1948, Israel has been systematically killing everyone in their ‘promised land’.
Honestly it would be an open and shut case here in the US.
My neighbor throws grenades into my window, me running into their house with my friends and shooting everyone there who looks like they might have had a grenade is not self-defense…
More like, im occupying my neighbor house while having him locked on the basement, he throws a rock at me and I’m just go around killing everyone I see.
Ashamed that my country abstained here
I’m not.
It’s obvious why OP is ashamed. But why aren’t you? Proud of your nation’s quiet support of a genocide?
Removed by mod
I think if I found out my country was doing a genocide with an unimaginably higher ratio of civilians murdered, I’d decry both acts, and not actively support the ongoing justifications made for a genocide by an apartheid based regime.
so you agree, Palestine has a right to defend itself, including with armed resistance?
Nope it definitely goes both ways, but one side has everything to lose. I might be morally justified trying to take on ms13 but I’m still going to get my ass handed to me.
one side DOES have everything to lose, and it’s the side being ethnically cleansed, starved, kidnapped, bombed, mauled by dogs, indiscriminately shot, and thrown into rape camps for about 75 years now. I’m glad you agree Palestinians have a right to resist their own eradication 🫡
So for every victim that died at the hands of a rapist, your judgement is that they should not have fought back as hard. Got it.
So you’re saying you condemn the rapist soldiers at Sde Teiman, the mob that rioted in their defense, and the administration that fostered an environment where that would happen?
Because surely you aren’t refering to the fabricated hoax about Hamas doing mass rape. You’ll reject it out of hand, but I guess for anyone else reading this, another good breakdown.
They voted in favour?
The headline is genocide apologia and should be banned.
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.
Israel is illegally occupying Palestine. The violence they commit is the furthest possible thing from self defense.
What a shitty title and crappy biased article. That’s not what the resolution was about.
Here’s the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/19/un-resolution-israel-palestinian-territory-countries-vote/
U.N. General Assembly demands Israel end occupation of Palestinian territory The nonbinding resolution says Israel must end its “unlawful presence” within a year, pull out military forces, halt settlement expansion and evacuate settlers.
Removed by mod
Why would you blame ml when it was posted by a .world member. Even they were just posting the article’s title verbatim. Should be blaming the Jerusalem post for such a garbage article
They are literally citing the Jeruslam post, a conservative pro-zionist media… You are lost.
because it fits their narrative?
Is this just symbolic? Does it levy any penalties for not complying?
The resolution has declaratory power only but provides international backing to those countries that want to take additional steps against Israel.
They never had that right to begin with. A foreign military force has no right to self defense from the occupied people.
Germany abstaining is actually a big deal.
The defense of Israel is one of our “Reason of State” and not voting in favour of Israel is a serious signal that politicians are fed up with Netanyahus bullshit.
Germany often abstained in critical UN votes regarding Israel and Palestine. E.g. here or here.
And german “intellectuals” are already in the “it is not binding” mode… Germanies political and media class is lost, completly detached from the constituency, who is against the genocide by a large margin.
We need to expel Israel from the UN. These religious fanatics have no place in the civilized world.
Removing a country from the UN for doing horrible things would defeat the UN’s entire purpose.
IDK, FRY was de facto kicked out of the UN in 1992.
Which is keep the current world order of countries doing such dominating?
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Good time to expel Iran as well
Israeli fanatics have killed more people in a year than Iran has in decades. Israel is a terrorist entity.
Whilst I disagree with your earlier point about expelling Israel from the UN (or anybody else: the whole point of the place is as a diplomatic talking shop for everybody) I wholehartedly agree with this one.
or anybody else: the whole point of the place is as a diplomatic talking shop for everybody
Except Artsakh and Tigray and Rojava and … Cause UN membership has been coerced to be used as some “proof of sovereignty” while it’s not even in UN’s own founding documents. So a non-UN member state won’t get accepted to UN (cause everybody voting likes their elevated status through such a situation) and additionally can be militarily attacked, even wiped out, and everybody acts as if that were normal, while, again, even in the UN charter it’s not.
I’d argue the harm from that is bigger than the purpose you named. After all, diplomats can already talk wherever they want and they do.
I don’t disagree with your criticisms of the UN. They’re not a perfect organization, and UN membership shouldn’t be some standard of sovereignty. However, diplomats have always been able to talk whenever they want, the problem that the League of Nations and then the UN tried to address was all the backrooms conversations nations used to have that were part of the causes that lead up to the first world war. Having an international platform every nation needs to at least listen to is better than the alternative. Arguably, untill now the UN has succeeded, there hasn’t been a WWIII.
It sounds a lot like you’re letting Perfection be the enemy of Good Enough.
Should there be no UN because in a small proportion of situations it’s actually shit and is it really realistic to have no talking shop like that at all for as long as it takes for the World to somehow get together and make a perfect entity for that?
I’ve given some thought to it over the years and I think that the UN still does more good than bad, even whilst being shit at some things and having no real power other than that of influencing nations in general and the World’s public opinion.
Further, even if in the balance of things tearing down the UN and creating something better turned out to be the best thing to do, I don’t quite see how arbitrarily kicking countries from the UN that were deemed “badly behaving” at the moment would help us create the something better since those countries would need to be there too (it would certainly help tear down the UN, just not help with the actual primary purpose of getting something better to replace it).
A talking shop for everybody using the penalty of kicking members out only ever succeeds in turning itself into an exclusive club, and at the time when the only thing that existed were such clubs (which were naturally made up of nations allied with each other) was before and at the start of WWI and lead to it and to WWII.
And then we can do US
Iran, if compared to most big countries except maybe India, Egypt and Latin American ones, is a paragon of humanism. They are at war with so many other countries because they behave like they are supposed to, while those others behave like Israel right now.
Of course murder, torture and rape of protesters is not something I’d sign under. It’s just that some things come down to numbers and make Iran better.
Have you seen what happens to Muslims in India? Hindu nationalists are using Gaza as a model for how they should run Kashmir.
There are much more Muslims living in India than just those in Kashmir. They also have regions where Muslims treat Christians that way. India is big. That said, yes, it sucks, but Kashmir is a situation where “both sides” can be used honestly. It’s just that somehow Europeans and Americans like to consider Muslims the oppressed group number one. Usually they are the oppressors.
Locking people up for their gender, sexuality or for listening to pop music is okay with you?
You fool.
As compared to beheading them for their ethnicity, yes. So until Azerbaijan is sanctioned and put to its place, please shut up. We all care more about things closer to us, but one is worse than the other.
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.
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
Legislative bodies get their “teeth” by the state monopoly on violence. The UN having teeth would have to mean UN forces, and it’d even have to mean those forces being among the strongest in the world.
It’s a diplomatic tool, not anything else. It encourages communication and collaboration and discourages conflict.
Good
Israel and Kyle Rittenhouse can agree on one thing, it’s totally cool to kill people and then pretend you were defending yourself
Please yankee, don’t make everything happening in the world about you
I’m not trying to make it about me, I’m trying to say that what Israel was doing was not self-defense
