Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

VorZakone said:
Can this be enforced on Israel?
Click to expand...

No. The only thing that can be enforced is a deal among the two parties - Israel and Hamas. That is the only thing that will generate an immediate ceasefire provided both sides agree. The current deal on the table would allegedly give Hamas 700 of its prisoners back and the Israelis would get 40 of their hostages back. The sticking point remains Hamas' demand that Israel remove all their troops from Gaza and Israel's demand that there be a six week pause in hostilities, during which further negotiations can take place.
 
Giggsy PO said:
Pretty much agree with all of this.
Click to expand...

But the right wing and netanyahu were voted for a absolute majority, isn't it? seems to me that is what a majority of israel is what they want, for decades
 
VorZakone said:
Can this be enforced on Israel?
Click to expand...
I thought a general assembly vote can be ignored. But not a Security Council vote. If a country does they can have sanctions applied against them as a first strike.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I would like to know what happens if Israel ignores the security council vote.
 
Netenyahu is a war criminal- no better than the men that took part in the events in WW2.
Should be tried and made to pay for his crimes
 
McGrathsipan said:
Netenyahu is a war criminal- no better than the men that took part in the events in WW2.
Should be tried and made to pay for his crimes
Click to expand...
Not just him - any member of the Knesset that has enabled or justified this genocide as well.
 
dinostar77 said:
I thought a general assembly vote can be ignored. But not a Security Council vote. If a country does they can have sanctions applied against them as a first strike.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I would like to know what happens if Israel ignores the security council vote.
Click to expand...

Me too. Cos if the answer is feck all, then it opens the question what exactly is the point of the UN ?

much bigger things now in play I think.
 
dinostar77 said:
I thought a general assembly vote can be ignored. But not a Security Council vote. If a country does they can have sanctions applied against them as a first strike.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I would like to know what happens if Israel ignores the security council vote.
Click to expand...

All it really does is provide cover for individual states to impose sanctions. I think in this instance the impact on media reporting may be a bigger impact as there's a level of the criticism being legitimised. It's not just tiktok and college students as some have tried to portray in other threads, because dead babies lolz.
 
Rooney24 said:
Me too. Cos if the answer is feck all, then it opens the question what exactly is the point of the UN ?

much bigger things now in play I think.
Click to expand...

The UN is a perennial joke. It's useful for specific stuff like aid beyond that some people confuse it some sort world wide goverments of sorts.
 
Rooney24 said:
Me too. Cos if the answer is feck all, then it opens the question what exactly is the point of the UN ?

much bigger things now in play I think.
Click to expand...
Pure propaganda.

This won't change a thing and the US will keep funding them and giving weapons etc...
 
Gehrman said:
The UN is a perennial joke. It's useful for specific stuff like aid beyond that some people confuse it some sort world wide goverments of sorts.
Click to expand...
People often make similar statements about international law of armed conflicts, saying it doesn't really work - and whilst I'd agree that the impact of international law in general and the UN in particular is often overblown, we must also recognise what the alternative would be i.e. countries being able to do whatever they want. Think about a conflict as brutal as the Hundred Years' War with modern technology. You can kill whoever you want, you can loot whatever city you invade, you can rape whoever you want etc.

I am not saying the UN and international law are perfect - far from it. But I think it's also worth remembering that the alternative is far less appealing in my eyes.
 
The difference this time is that the US didn't veto. It's actually quite significant in the directive (ceasefire) but it remains to be seen what happens thereafter (decolonization of the WB and reconstruction of Gaza).

It's more than symbolism. Whilst Israel has always, in its recent history, acted against the UN's various resolutions, it has never been in this situation before where the US is stepping aside (due to global demand) at the SC. And due to that same global demand, Israel has never been more isolated. It has no choice but to back off, or, if not that, then accept North Korea status incrementally.
 
Goldfiessli said:
People often make similar statements about international law of armed conflicts, saying it doesn't really work - and whilst I'd agree that the impact of international law in general and the UN in particular is often overblown, we must also recognise what the alternative would be i.e. countries being able to do whatever they want. Think about a conflict as brutal as the Hundred Years' War with modern technology. You can kill whoever you want, you can loot whatever city you invade, you can rape whoever you want etc.

I am not saying the UN and international law are perfect - far from it. But I think it's also worth remembering that the alternative is far less appealing in my eyes.
Click to expand...

The UN also wouldn't be able to stop the scenario of countries doing whatever they want, mainly because of the security council. Ultimately, the global order is still fundamentally an anarchic dominance hierarchy where superpowers can generally do what they want and those below them are increasingly constrained when those above them oppose their actions.

The UN, much like all other international or supranational organizations are therefore merely setup to drive the interests of the superpowers (or in the case of the EU, the largest member states), while giving smaller nations a false impression that they are a part of a democratic process.

The scenario you're describing is more in sync with a world government. In that situation, countries would literally not be able to do whatever they want because power wouldn't be at the nation state level; but rather at the surpanational level. We are decades away from that ever becoming a viable reality. Until such time, the international system will remain anarchic with superpowers (and those who ally themselves with them) regining supreme.
 
Last edited:
It comes down to image. After a while, that can lead to boycott campaigns (not the previous ones, but internationally led campaigns). Israel's image has taken an absolute beating, as is exactly appropriate (inverse to its actions).

Stand with Israel's right to defend itself and Ukraine's right to do the same where Israel's right to defend itself is "Russian aggression" in a different landscape. That was always going to be a huge problem. You cannot manage it with propaganda. It's an outright contradiction.
 
Goldfiessli said:
People often make similar statements about international law of armed conflicts, saying it doesn't really work - and whilst I'd agree that the impact of international law in general and the UN in particular is often overblown, we must also recognise what the alternative would be i.e. countries being able to do whatever they want. Think about a conflict as brutal as the Hundred Years' War with modern technology. You can kill whoever you want, you can loot whatever city you invade, you can rape whoever you want etc.

I am not saying the UN and international law are perfect - far from it. But I think it's also worth remembering that the alternative is far less appealing in my eyes.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but that isn't the only alternative. In fact that's probably the most extreme alternative. Instead, a long overdue and desirable path is the reformation of the UN Security Council, it's been dysfunctional for decades and the instances in which it was effective were exceptions. As long as it survives in its current form its primary purpose will be to serve as a useful tool for the advancement of 5 countries' foreign policies.
 
Anti-semitic! anti-semitic!!

Does this word has even a truthful meaning anymore?
 
4bars said:
Anti-semitic! anti-semitic!!

Does this word has even a truthful meaning anymore?
Click to expand...

It does but it loses a lot if not all of its meaning when used by Israeli officials or for purposes of propaganda.
 
Why are the US calling it non-binding? Aren’t SC resolutions by definition legally binding?
 
Jev said:
Why are the US calling it non-binding? Aren’t SC resolutions by definition legally binding?
Click to expand...

They mean the ceasefire bit non binding, they want to get away on word technicality as it does not specify period (it does not say permeant ceasefire).
 
Modern day Nazi's fuming...but I doubt this will change anything.
 
Giggsyking said:


Rarely you see applauds in the security council.
Click to expand...

Really pathetic from the US. And pathetic gaslighting trying to make it seem like it’s the fault of China and Russia.
 


Makes you wonder how much Israel / Israelis made up in the immediate aftermath of Oct 7th.
 
The Corinthian said:


Makes you wonder how much Israel / Israelis made up in the immediate aftermath of Oct 7th.
Click to expand...


It makes me wonder little to be honest. Lot of BS beside the reality of more than 1000 deaths, that is horrible enough
 
4bars said:
It makes me wonder little to be honest. Lot of BS beside the reality of more than 1000 deaths, that is horrible enough
Click to expand...
Exactly. But it feels a lot more was fabricated and embellished whilst the rest of the world was still reeling from the news to give Israel carte blanche to do whatever it wanted to Palestinians. To be honest, it’s part of Israel’s MO. Lie, obfuscate, deflect and the truth eventually comes out down the line. The death of Shireen springs to mind.
 
I wrote on October 9h that I wished Netanyahu was dead...
still can't fathom how the lives of so many people are in his hands.
his voters should all be lobotomized as far as I'm concerned.

The fact that scores of people will die for absolutely nothing,
the fact that Israel will turn into another Russia...
it was there to be seen by all.

I really don't understand (I do, but can't accept it) how people in Israel thought that the state could get away with it forever.
Not talking about the religious ones, they are beyond the point of having a discussion,
but the part of the public that is meant to "be like me", not necessarily with the same political stances but with the same logic, same eyes, some sense of humanity...

alas... nope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.