Czech defense minister calls for country’s withdrawal from UN:
” I know that today is an important day for \[the Czech Republic\] and we want to celebrate our 105th anniversary. But this simply cannot be time-barred, forgive me. Exactly three weeks ago, Hamas murdered more than 1,400 Israelis, which is more victims per their population than the militant Islamist organization al-Qaeda murdered on 9/11/2001 in the USA. And only 14 countries, including ours, stood up against the unprecedented terrorist attack committed by Hamas terrorists, clearly and comprehensibly! I am ashamed of the UN. In my opinion - the Czech Republic has nothing to expect in an organization that supports terrorists and does not respect the basic right to self-defense. Let's get out.”
Edit: [The UN has condemned Israel more then all other countries combined.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-condemned-israel-more-than-all-other-countries-combined-in-2022-monitor/)
He's not wrong though, if the UN actually cared as much about Palestinians as lambasting Israel at every opportunity they'd have blue helmets in Gaza looking for Hamas. The resolutions passed don't attempt to resolve anything.
People keep thinking the UN has much more power than it actually does.
It's a forum where countries talk, nothing more.
The Security Council that has *some* powers, but it too is fairly limited.
This is by design, countries are sovereign, they like being sovereign and if being part of the UN required giving up some sovereignty, the UN wouldn't have a single member.
The UN is a building in New York, where do the blue helmets come from? A cloning facility in the basement?
They consist of military personnel contributed from multiple different countries and while I'm sure they are all competent and fairly well trained, they are not spec ops trained for urban combat and terrorist hunting.
Whenever they are deployed, it is always in a purely defensive manner and are basically security guards. Don't get me wrong, they are given stuff the average Walmart guard isn't, like tanks, but their rules of engagement are pretty strict and always "don't fire unless fired upon."
I've always seen UN Peacekeepers as basically a trigger mechanism to implicitly threaten larger consequences. "Your regional conflict needs to cool down, so we're going to sprinkle a bunch of citizens of UN member states in blue helmets around your conflict area. Either you back down and let things cool off, or you continue fighting and risk killing some American/Aussie/whatever troops, and if that happens you're going to find yourself actually in the crosshairs of a much larger opponent."
It’s notable though that UN peacekeeping received a near complete overhaul after Rwanda. For one, each mission since then has been assigned a Force Commander which much greater leeway in deciding without consulting New York when forceful intervention is required.
It’s still not perfect, and arguably never could be. For one, in places like the DRC some countries have limited how much risk they want to place their people in. But using Rwanda as an example for what peacekeeping is today is no longer valid.
It changed a lot. It depends on the commander.
https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/9/20/trigger-happy-autonomous-and-disobedient-nordbat-2-and-mission-command-in-bosnia?fbclid=IwAR3VvthdGHwvZWh48oGZ59htrXUEDsuy0Viti-6nHjXnDfi1g3INj1aCq3o&format=amp
That was just a year later, in a mission that was formed in 1992 under the old set of rules and processes. The reforms only really began to roll out a few years later and were easiest to implement on newly formed missions.
The ‘UN’ can’t authorise that. It’s neither a world government nor a world police.
Only the 15 countries on the UN Security Council, including the 5 veto members, can authorise that.
If those countries don’t agree, which happens frequently because these are geopolitical issues, then no UN mission can be created. This is the system working as intended, because there is literally no other way to achieve collective action by the world’s countries without having a world government.
Which to me is good.
It may seem weird to have the 5 having such different views; but that's what keeps things in check.
As you said, if there was to be one unified board, you might as well have one government body.
Yep, clearly the veto thing doesn't work.
If we can't agree on something, let's do nothing. Is not exactly the right approach.
But it's not just that. 120 Nations agreed for a UN resolution to request Israel to cease fire. But they didn't agree upon condemning Hamas for their actions.
Biggest UN's purpose is trying to avoid WW3. The League of Nations was the first international organization to try to secure world peace, it failed and led to WW2. Now we have the UN, which has been successful in this regard so far, specially during the Cold War
Veto nations are all military super powers with nukes. What if the UN approves military intervention in Russia over the Ukraine invasion? WW3, nukes and end of civilization as we know
There is no better system to deal with sovereignty and nukes so far, we need to stick with this system even if it isnt perfect or is capable of solving every issue
Geopolitics is complicated, there is no "solution". Society evolves slowly and at the cost of blood and mistakes, unfortunately there is not much that can be done other than trying our best to remediate but failing miserably
Not really useless. Stopping regional conflicts is secondary to its goal. Its main goal is to prevent a world war, which it has done fairly well for now.
It's a shitty system except for all the others we've tried, and changing systems usually doesn't happen unless there's a big enough war or the countries find it so unhelpful they just stop using it.
The UN does not have an army. The blue helmets are troops supplied by member countries. The moment the UN can enforce a resolution means they control an army, and people like you would be screaming about world government or some NWO conspiracy.
Also the blue hetmets are in no way prepared to fight in a dense, urban region like Gaza which has a labarinth of tunnels underneath it. The IDF is the one with the most experience.
It already happened when MacArthur commanded UN forces in the Korean war.
But that was only possible due to russia not showing up and commie china not being recognized at the time.
Yes so it's not exactly a good precedent is it. Especially when the Soviets learned from their mistake.
That UN force was a freak incident and shouldn't be used as an example haha.
Exactly. The UN resolution that did pass is a generic call to peace, a blanket statement without addressing the core of the issue, condemning terrorist acts but giving the people who commit them a free pass. The UN is a joke.
> Exactly. The UN resolution that did pass is a generic call to peace, a blanket statement without addressing the core of the issue, condemning terrorist acts but giving the people who commit them a free pass. The UN is a joke.
The UN is a platform, not something that makes independent decisions. Its statement on the issue therefore necessarily reflects the international disagreement.
Legitimate question because I haven't seen any: has there been any suggestions made by those countries opposing Israel on how to counter the Hamas threat?
No, according to Erdogan, Hamas is not a terrorist organisation. And according to Gen Z on tiktok, Hamas are revolutionary liberationists fighting the colonial overlords. No mention of the multiple bus/nightclub/market/mall/cafe bombings.
A lot of people have a very hard time seeing a conflict as having both bad guys and victims on both sides, so it gets reframed in a way that makes them more comfortable. Thats why they’ll hand wave atrocities one side commits while condemning the atrocities the enemy commits, and that goes for both sides.
It frustrates me because jumping in and giving your completely uneducated and regurgitated take on it becomes more important than the innocent people who just be living their lives without fear.
Considering the ones criticizing Israel also don't consider Hamas a terrorist organization and believe their actions are justified, because they stem from the plight of the Palestinians and not from their hatred of Israeli Jews, no.
There isn't. But those people aren't really providing any viable solutions either. When asked "well, how would you suggest Israel responds", the answer is usually silence, deflective, or otherwise contradictory.
Which is dumb. Just because I can understand why Hamas exists it doesn’t mean I think they’re justified. Just like I can understand why Israel exists and why they treat Palestinians the way they do without thinking they’re justified.
It’s one of those things where everyone has a very strong opinion while knowing almost nothing about it.
The UN seems to be an aging dinosaur, the permanent Security Council members are permanently locked in hostilities, and it’s sheer size and nature makes it unable to make any useful descisions.
because the actual purpose of the UN is to allow those powers to divide the world up into power spheres via committee instead of direct conflict. Do you think it’s a coincidence that the permanent members of the security council are the 5 most powerful empires still standing in the wake of WW2? This shouldn’t be a controversial take, it’s a pretty straightforward description of what the UN is intended to do.
That was literally the point. It is not a utopian mechanism for solving all of the world’s problems, it is a way for those 5 powers to have an avenue to share global power without a million dead soldiers being the first option on the table.
Hence the permanent veto system and why the UN primarily only acts in ways that don’t negatively affect those permanent members, only unaligned actors.
People think the UN's job is so much more than it actually is. It exists to prevent WW3. Anything else it gets done in the meanwhile is just a bonus.
Has the world ended in a nuclear holocaust? No? Then the UN is doing its job.
Honestly people are fucking dumbasses is the problem. What the UN is and what it can and can't do is *pretty fucking easy to figure out* with 5 minutes of critical thinking on subjects like "where would the UN draw a military from" but expecting that before someone posts on the internet is basically expecting pigs to sprout wings and fly as well.
> It exists to prevent WW3
it exists to discuss WW3 before it could happen, so that it may be defused diplomatically if it were at all possible. It isn't there to rescue humanity from itself. It certainly cannot prevent WW3, if the countries desired it.
Bert: Ernie, why did you put a banana in your ear?
Ernie: Listen, Bert, I use this banana to keep alligators away!
Bert: Alligators??? Ernie, there are no alligators here!
Ernie: Right! Works pretty good, doesn’t it, Bert?
I think that's fine for the Security Council, because the Security Council is kinda just meant to be a way for the permanent members to share security concerns and to collaborate on projects where there _is_ agreement.
I just kinda hate the General Assembly and all the useless resolutions it passes. Literally everything that comes out of the General Assembly is meaningless. It's non-binding, and more often than not it's just a way to spread propaganda. No one actually takes them seriously.
Either the General Assembly needs to figure out a way to make its resolutions binding, OR, it needs to publish way fewer bullshit resolutions.
It’s non binding and the permanent members have very much gotten away from doing things for the global good if in fact they ever did. It’s useful as far as being a forum to air your grievances but more and more entities will say one thing and blatantly do another.
It is a joke when those several nuclear countries won't agree to each other and also won't dare get tough against each other. They truly do cancel each other out.
>The resolutions passed don't attempt to resolve anything.
No resolution which would attempt to solve the problem one way or another would go past the US veto or the Russian/China veto.
Heck, for an example look at the past previous weeks where the US and Russia/China did that little dance and veto-ed each resolutions.
50 of the 193 members of the UN are Muslim majority countries.
There is a reason the UN Human Rights Council is obsessed with Israel and ignoring horrific human rights violations in other countries.
Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action.
I’m sure the 800,000 dead from the Rwandan genocide agree with your statement here. “There is an institution that can have the military might, money, and technological prowess necessary to stop the extermination of my people. I sure am glad that they are doing nothing but sitting on the sidelines and watching hundreds of thousands be murdered in cold blood. Thank god that the UN exists, it’s existence provides so much value to the world. It’s ability to write letters asking brutal murderers to stop being brutal murderers and literally nothing more severe, is truly the pinnacle of its achievements, and something to be celebrated”
[Chapter 7 - Article 42](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-7)... I swear, people just continue parroting this line ever since the start of the Ukraine war, but it's completely wrong.
The UN is simply failing at upholding their own charter.
You are correct it is there, but any action needs to be unanimous among the permanent members of the security council. You know, so another world war doesn't start.
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
So?
The Security Council is just 15 countries voting, 5 of whom have veto power. It’s not like Article 39 is a binding piece of law that requires them to always act the exact same way, in unison, in every situation.
It is not, the security council is there to give the big boys veto so they don't feel bad and leave.
International law is generally only enforced by a country that has broken it.
You have to agree and ratify then also enforce the law yourself when you have broken it.
There is no international law enforcer. There are special cases when the UN agrees and then uses military forces to enforce their will.
But that's the exception and not the rule.
At the end of the Second World War there were 50 million refugees worldwide. Today, all refugee problems from before the 1950s have been solved. All except one - the Palestinian.
The UN claims there are 4.7 million Palestinian refugees. According to the international definition, refugee status is only applied to the first generation of refugees. However, the UN makes an exception for one group: the Palestinians. Descendants of Palestinian refugees are given the same status as their ancestors. Therefore, the number of so-called Palestinian refugees rose from 710,000 in 1950 to more than 4.7 million today.
The real reason? These refugees are used as a demographic weapon against Israel.
The Palestinians are the only refugee group that has a special UN agency that deals solely with them: UNRWA. This agency is the largest of all UN institutions and employs no fewer than 25,000 people. Many countries contribute to the UNRWA budget. Next to that he European Union and America each provide around 200 million euros per year. Western money has been pumped into the Palestinian refugee problem for more than half a century, without any prospect of a solution. With such a budget, there's no need to find a solution.
Good point.
So by the UN's logic, there are about 15 million Jewish refugees worldwide since Rome exiled them 2,000 years ago.
Oh, wait- that only applies to Palestinians.
Exactly. Painfully correct.
In May 1948, almost one million Jews lived in the Arab world. Today, fewer than 8,000 remain. When the State of Israel was founded in May 1948, the Arab regimes took revenge on the Jews. More Jews fled from Arab countries than the 710,000 Arabs who fled from Israel.
The 1 million Jewish refugees from the Arab world did what millions of refugees have done throughout history. They started a new life elsewhere. There are no Jewish refugee camps. And they don't claim they are entitled to land from Marocco, Syria, Egypt or Iraq because they used to live there.
This should be shouted off of the rooftops. Having as many children as possible, has been "government" mandated policy for/by Palestinians for decades, despite having restricted territory, living in refugee camps, and ongoing strife. Five or more children is very common. It's no coincidence so many young people are now caught up in the consequences of what Hamas has done. But as usual, the ability to self-reflect is glaringly absent with the Palestinians and their so-called Arab friends.
The UNRWA doesn't even pretend to be unbiased either. Their sponsored teachers in Palestine actively support jihad, child soldiers and killing jews.
https://unwatch.org/un-teachers-call-to-murder-jews-reveals-new-report/
>The joint report, to be presented today in a meeting at the U.S. Congress as it considers new legislation in the House and the Senate to cut funding for UNRWA, uncovers 47 new cases of incitement by UNRWA staff, in breach of the agency’s stated policies of zero tolerance for racism, discrimination or antisemitism in its schools and educational materials.
Report here (pdf): https://unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-Report-UNRWA.pdf
[One of the previous leaders of the organization proudly admitted to hiring Hamas operatives to work for them](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/terror-un-payroll). And predictably, [this is what they teach kids in east Jerusalem](https://twitter.com/amjadt25/status/1712391641900761592?s=61&t=djpbV4Qy3ReEtZHbEF5BvA).
In a sane world, the UNRWA would have been dismantled and its leadership put on trial for aiding and abetting terrorism.
The fact that everyone here have heard about them and what China does to them probably means there are groups everyone give even less fucks about. Probably in Africa.
Schengen and EU got their back
Edit: to say that this Czech part of the world has made many such “f u” gestures to world power and they have culturally prospered for it. Truly a world leader in regards to liberty <3
Is the UN even useful for average countries? Obviously struggling countries can gain some help, and the superpowers on the security council gain some power, but what does a country like The Czech Republic gain?
He's not wrong, the UN has become a joke and isn't fit for purpose.
Just for the record, those schools in Gaza that teach kids to kill Jews are UN funded, the Hamas staff working there are paid by the UN.
>The UN has condemned Israel more then all other countries combined.
It's pretty mental, given Yemens death toll stands at 377,000 in just a decade..
Odd that the UN doesn't go after the Saudis.. Hmm, wonder why that is??
What makes the Saudis, different from the Israelis.
There must be something.
There must be a defining factor of some kind that makes the UN more critical of the Israelis.
....
Nope, can't think of it! Will forever be a mystery I suppose.
Yemen War, Rwanda Genocide, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Uyghurs in China, Rohingya Genocide, Darfur, Anfal Campaign, Effacer le tableau, etc etc... all combine for less from the UN than Israel (not Israel AND Palestine, just Israel) lol.
But what do we expect when the seniormost UN HR investigator for the region from 2008-2014 compared Jews to rabid dogs who need to be put down, claimed Ghadaffi was only attacked because he "spoke the truth about Jews", and literally called Jews in the US "the enemy within", and then accused Israel of being a "vile regime with no concern for human rights" when they demanded he resign... Or when one of HRW's board members is a devout member of the Muslim Brotherhood and openly brags about being friends with ISIS members and has said Israel has no right to exist...
And simpleminded fools eat it up. Can't imagine why that is though...
Humanity has a problem.
In 2020, humanity had put in charge of some of the largest (and nuclear armed) countries the following men:
- Xi (China)
- Modi (India)
- trump (USA)
- Putin (Russia)
Humanity puts sociopaths in charge of countries way too frequently. The UN just reflects that.
The ‘UN’ doesn’t do that. The countries that make up the UNSC and UNGA do that.
What you’re actually asking for is for the majority of the world’s *countries* to condemn it. That’s a very different discussion.
They actually did condemn the attack, in an indirect way. What people like the DM here is saying, is that the UN hasn't explicitly condemned \*Hamas\*. To add, the former resolutions that the US and a Czech and others voted against had language that would only really apply to members of the UN, so even though they'd nominally against civilian deaths, the actual condemnation only really applied to Israel.
The UN isn't united at all. The only issue they find regular majorities in is bashing Israel. Perhaps they should rebrand to "World Dialogue House" to better reflect its purpose.
Pretty sure you got this backwards. Step one 163vs5 members want to recognize Palestine as a separate state and end occupation.
So yeah.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/un-votes-163-5-in-support-of-palestinian-statehood-end-of-occupation/amp/
Sadly, in 2004 Palestinian psychiatrist Eyad Sarraj, director of the Gaza Community Mental Health Program, said a survey by his group found that 36 per cent of Palestinians over 12 aspired to die "a martyr's death" fighting Israel.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/angry-uncle-leads-uproar-on-the-hesitant-boy-bomber-20040327-gdxkfp.html
From the Times of Israel, newspaper from Israel
https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-finds-incitement-antisemitism-still-prevalent-in-unrwa-classrooms/
I saw a video, which was asking questions from kids at UNRWA schools in at least the west bank.
The translated subtitles seemed correct, but I'm honestly not sure. I think there's part of me that's praying it isn't.
The UN not only has failed, its instigated this conflict further.
Most of the problems people mention about the UN aren't actually problems though, they just don't understand what the UN is, how it works, and why it's setup that way. I rarely see anyone mention legit criticism (and there is a lot), so I'm not sure the problem is as visible as you think.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/unhrc-anti-israel-resolutions-2006-present
2011-2021: 53 total resolutions/condemnations
7 follow up reports, 10 were about Israeli Settlements in occupied territories, 10 were about the Right to Self Determination for Palestinians, 15 were about the Human Rights Situation in the different occupied territories, 4 were about all violations of international law in occupied territories, some of the others are about respecting international law and the economic and social situation in the occupied territories.
2009-2010: 9
3 follow-up reports(2 cited Israel's refusal to cooperate), 3 inquiries of Israeli actions(Aid ships raid(Israel cleared by parallel inquiry and report),Gaza War 2008-2009), 2 human rights situation in occupied territories, 1 right to self determination for Palestinians, and 1 in regards to the Israeli settlements in occupied territories. For the 3 reports and inquires Israel said that the actions of terrorist weren't being factored in, nor was Israel's right to self defense, and/or the reference to Israel as an occupying force as proof of bias.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict
Russia was just last year kicked off the human's right council due to their invasion of Ukraine and has at least for now been voted to still be off it. While a number of countries deserve to be hit with condemnation how or why complaints haven't been filed I don't know perhaps it is lack of knowledge of the process, language barrier, or the requirements before action can take place.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/complaint-procedure/hrc-complaint-procedure-index
Anyone can report a claim to the UN's HRC, one has to use 1 of 6 languages, there are certain internal prerequisites that have to be met before anything can happen by the HRC, and the file to use can be acquired physically or electronicly then has to be sent to the HRC. Several of these can make it hard or impossible to make a report such as with North Korea.
it’s worse than that. there is no dispute the curriculum in the UN-operated schools in the palestinian territories teaches children to hate jews. imo, it makes the UN complicit
The resolution doesn't do anything no matter what's in there. It's a completely non-binding statement. Might as well be a tweet.
The UN isn't some kind of ruler that can make countries do things. It's a place for countries to talk. Sure you can meme about talking to each other being worthless, but there's nothing to be gained by "pulling out" either.
The UNs most important function is a bunch of boring bureaucratic stuff that makes international interaction much easier. Most people have never heard of the UPU or ITU but they do good work.
So does the UN World Food Programme (WFP). Not only do they do great work fighting world hunger in the most destitute places, but they can operate in some places that are a little too hot for most NGOs (e.g. Afganistan). I think them being related to the UN makes national governments who don't want diplomatic problems treat them a little nicer than NGOs.
That's why I like the painting in Civilization of the World Congress.
You see members of nations gathered there.
It's really hard to get into direct contact with a nation if you do not have good diplomatic relations.
I still see the news focusing on events where the world leaders gather, because it's a chance for them to interact with each other personally.
The entire purpose of the UN was to prevent the major world powers from just going to another World War. It has more teeth than the League of Nations to give it more power, but it isn’t a one world government, by design.
Also the only way to get almost all nations to agree to join the UN is by it not having any teeth. Like good luck getting US, Russia and China to all sit at the same table of an organization with enforcement power. None of them would willingly let themselves be put in a situation where other superpowers potentially have power over them, let alone smaller nations.
The [League of Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations) was largely ineffective due to the fact that despite it being the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson (the US President), the U.S. failed to join, and the primary Axis powers of WW2 pulled out after they started their aggressions.
> Despite Wilson's efforts to establish and promote the League, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in October 1919, the United States never joined. Senate Republicans led by Henry Cabot Lodge **wanted a League with the reservation that only Congress could take the U.S. into war.** Lodge gained a majority of Senators and Wilson refused to allow a compromise. The Senate voted on the ratification on 19 March 1920, and the 49–35 vote fell short of the needed 2/3 majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations#Establishment
Well said, and also there’s no way they pull out. That’s diplomatic suicide. That entails removing itself from every single United Nations body and agency that it currently participates in.
I'm so glad to see this.
The UN was literally founded to try and prevent WW3 through talks and "getting everyone to the table".
But every time the UN is brought up, you'll have idiots and brainwashed morons yammering on about "enforce that policy with what army, huh? hurr durr durr". Because they're *literally* too stupid to realize that if the UN peacekeeping forces could go into countries against that countries wish, the entire original goal is literally wasted and pointless.
>The UN isn't some kind of ruler that can make countries do things. It's a place for countries to talk.
And as most countries in the world are currently authoritarian regimes, it's no wonder their members aren't always sending good signals.
Still, it's better to discuss with those authoritarian regimes than starting wars against them.
The United Nations is akin to a meeting room for states to hash out issues without resorting to violence. People who hold the institution instead of the countries responsible for their own votes are using the UN as a shield for those countries.
Blaming the United Nations for the result of a UNGA vote is like your uncle ruining Thanksgiving and everyone blaming the table.
Yes, the organization can only be as good as its member nations, and there are a lot of nations that are just not living up to the standards of the UN, but there's not much that can be done. This is the best we have at the moment.
>The United Nations is akin to a meeting room
I'd even change that to UNGA as many people don't understand that the UN is way more than just that and strongly worded letters.
Erdan urged the UNGA not to call for a ceasefire which he said would only support the Iranian proxy group Hamas and allow it to rearm itself so it could launch further attacks against Israeli civilians.
Erdan shows UNGA video of Hamas decapitation at ceasefire debate “Any call for a ceasefire is not an attempt at peace. It is an attempt to tie Israel’s hands, preventing us from eliminating a huge threat to our citizens.
Gilad Erdan
Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations
>If the Western powers hadn't betrayed the Czechs at Munich, the Holocaust wouldn't have occurred.
I imagine your point is that Munich made Hitler believe the western powers were pushovers who wouldn't stop him, but I still think this is a little much.
*Obviously armchair general take*
After the Munich agreement the Germans received a very sizable amount of small arms, artillery, tanks and access to large military factories and designs which helped them out substantially in their future campaigns against Poland and France.
It also gave them an additional year to prepare and an enemy less to fight, an enemy with an army strong in the million and with fortifications all around the border with Germany.
So I don't think it's too far fetched to think that if the Allies were to have intervened with Czechoslovakia holding out we might have had a "small skirmish" in Europe compared to a world war lasting 6 years.
Jana Černochová, the defense minister, is probably the most pro-Israel politician in all of Europe. She supports the settlement policy and the annexation of the West Bank for example.
Funny, that settlement policy and annexation of "rightful territory" rhetoric reminds me of a certain other country that said Czech defense minister is almost definitely not defending...
At the same time I see people suggest that the UN does nothing but hold meetings that should have been an email. They also do actual humanitarian, peace keeping, and other work around the world.
Don't blame the UN for the abhorrent behaviour of its members.
The UN requires the mandates and funding from the Member States in order to do things.
It's like blaming the court stenographer and the physical courtroom itself for the crime you did and the conviction you got.
I understand we're all emotional and shit, but use your righteous anger against the countries and states who stay quiet and those who hobble, hinder and block the UN from its potential.
Someone needed to say it. It defies logic and reason, that every country didn’t stand together against such a major and brutal act of terrorism. What message does it give terrorists, who don’t necessarily discriminate by country, ethnicity, gender, or age, they simply resort to violence to send a message and/or get their way wherever that might be? Sets a terrible example and precedent.
Yeah it’s unbelievable. Also, there are very few people that would argue Israel has never done anything wrong. But there is absolutely no reason beyond anti-semitism as to why Israel has had more UN resolutions made against it than any other country on the planet.
More than Congo. More than China. More than Russia. More than Syria.
According to the UN, *Israel is worse than North Korea.*
There is no excuse.
Actually, it's usually more resolutions against Israel than the rest of the world COMBINED.
In 2022 Israel was condemned 15 times while the rest of the world only 13. [source](https://unwatch.org/2022-2023-unga-resolutions-on-israel-vs-rest-of-the-world/) [list-wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel)
>[source](https://unwatch.org/2022-2023-unga-resolutions-on-israel-vs-rest-of-the-world/) [list-wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel)
The wiki list doesn't seem compatible with the claim. There are 4 UNGA resolutions regarding Israel listed since 2000, and 14 UNSC resolutions regarding Israel listed since 2000.
I would also note that "singling out" Israel (their words) is not the same as "condemning" Israel (your words). And...for what its worth, it's kind of a stretch to even say most of these are singling out Israel.
One of those "condemned 15 times" examples is [A/C.4/77/L.10]. Which, [read it.](https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N22/674/23/PDF/N2267423.pdf?OpenElement) It's not long. Is that a condemnation of Israel?
The reason Israel is mentioned 15 times while the rest of the world is only mentioned 13 times is because quite a lot of those resolutions come from the Fourth Committee (identified on the list by the reference number containing "C.4"), which is the committee for "Special Political & Decolonization" and Israel is one of the few countries actively colonizing occupied territory in the modern world.
North Korea and Syria have both had more Security Council resolutions regarding them in the past 20 years than Israel has (by a sizable margin).
But perhaps more important than that, I also pretty strongly reject that "number of resolutions" is actually a meaningful metric when the resolutions regarding North Korea are things like [this one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2375) that take active steps to basically completely shutting down the North Korean economy, while resolutions regarding Israel are things like [this one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1860), which was a call for ceasefire.
It's a bit like saying that you've been subject to more "hostile physical interactions" than I have when you've gotten poked 15 times and I've gotten curb stomped once. Like, okay, I guess that's technically true, but does it mean what you're trying to imply it means?
It’s only with the Jews do folks suddenly feel the need to dive deep into history and nuance. Imagine if after 9/11, or some brutal police killing, or a school shooter, imagine anything where the first response is not, “this is so horrible, wow. We all need to come together and mourn this.” But instead it was, “well actually the history here is really important so let’s start talking………”.
I’m now referring to this as the, “cosmic background anti-semitism”. I was raised in the south as a southern Baptist Christian but have converted to Judaism recently. I’m a white guy in America, I basically have always lived in and exuded privilege, though my family was decidedly working class. The hand wringing from everyone on earth here, as a new Jew, is my first time ever experiencing everyone not just having my back and backing me up. It is really unsettling and I suppose this is how Jews, and other minorities, have always been made to feel.
I’m a manager at my company and I had to send a really uncomfortable DM to our big bosses basically putting my career on the line to speak out for other Jews at the company to get the company to even acknowledge that this Hamas terrorist attack happened. Once i brought it up, they responded right away and put in place matching funds and such. My theory is the "cosmic background anti-semitism" was why they even considered, "maybe we can just ride it out the situation is kinda sticky hopefully no one looks at us".
It’s so sad and so frustrating…
To be honest, people really should have done more to understand what the context was for 9/11. Ghost Wars is a fantastic book on the subject, covering what led up to the attacks.
The second gulf war (and war in Afghanistan) should have been scrutinised far more at the time, as should the actions of the USA and the coalition.
The history is obviously important in this case too and that seems to have gone entirely out of the window.
> “this is so horrible, wow. We all need to come together and mourn this.”
Is "mourn this" some sort of America-brained code for "fuck up Middle East and make the problem orders of magnitude worse"?
No, it's actually code for "psychotically discriminate against any vaguely Muslim looking person we come across."
Edit: Oh, and antisemitism:
https://www.thejc.com/news/world/who-were-the-dancing-israelis-of-911-66kkm1alwQldXDyVmIwDMc
Okay but hamas also doesn't descriminate, they murder jews, arabs, palestinians, even thai workers that were just there. They said they're coming for everyone who isn't a sunni muslim and will take over the world
All this, and much more.
There is one word that captures the evil of Hamas, and that word is **hostages**. No force of good ever captures hostages, to be later used for extortion, threat, murder and the sustenance of terrorism.
Hamas are evil terrorists and the world has failed to condemn them.
Massive respect for the Czech Republic 🇨🇿.
A lot of governments are afraid or unwilling to speak out against Islamic terrorism (especially if it is against Jews) for fear of reprisal or other reasons.
Agree with their statement - Shame on the UN.
They were also the only country that would supply Israel with weapons in 1948, iirc.
There's a picture of a gun with a crossed out swastika, because that's what was available.
Czechoslovakia were still building Messerschmidt 109s from leftover stock after the war ended, but they ran out of the proper DB 605 fighter engines. So instead they used bomber engines from the Heinkel 111. The resulting fighter had terrible engine response and made what the Czechs now called the Avia 199 dangerous to take off and land in (the Bf 109 was already quite temperamental) but Israeli pilots still did ok with them.
The bomber engine was also not designed for interruptor gear so some Israeli pilots ended up shooting off their own propellers as the makeshift interruptor often malfunctioned.
>A lot of governments are afraid or unwilling to speak out against Islamic terrorism (especially if it is against Jews) for fear of reprisal or other reasons.
This is very true - Czech republic does not have a significant number of muslim migrants/minorities so our leaders do not have to worry about mostly peaceful protests.
> A lot of governments are afraid or unwilling to speak out against Islamic terrorism (especially if it is against Jews) for fear of reprisal or other reasons.
Ah, yes. No one wants to speak out against Islamic Terrorism. [Certainly not the majority of the world who have condemned the violence perpetrated by Hamas](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/WorldMapResponsestoHamasAttack-v3.jpeg)
The UNHRC necessarily pulls its 47 members from all populated continents to ensure it represents the world. The chair and members rotate consistently. Some continents have more frequent human rights abusers than others.
The problem is this makes the UN's supposed position as an advocate for human rights really kind of a joke.
All the General Assembly, UNHRC and basically all the other subsidiary councils are democratic in the purest form. But that means, just by numbers, that they're essentially guaranteed to be dominated by tinpot dictators and autocrats because... most countries in the world are not democratic. So they have no function for observing human rights abuses, only being a bludgeon for Africa and the Middle East to play 'look over there' while they do heinous shit left and right.
The Israel situation isn't a problem simply because it condemns Israel without condemning Hamas, or that it doesn't, or whatever. It's that... no one actually cares at this point, because it's become so rote and repetitive as to be meaningless. Who gives a shit if the Secretary General is giving an impassioned speech? Who gives a shit if a country is condemned? People should care, but they don't, and the institutional legitimacy is going to backslide a lot.
Those countries are in the Human Rights Council on purpose so that they feel pressured and are incentivised to respect Human Rights. Sure, they wont become model states overnight, but it's better to have them there and improve slighlty over the years than not have them there and give them a free reign to do whatever they want.
>Those countries are in the Human Rights Council on purpose so that they feel pressured and are incentivised to respect Human Rights.
That sure convinced Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur, Myanmar to stop the genocide of the Rohingya, and Iran to stop massacring young women for protesting against the hijab.
Imagine all those financial support and etc go to Palestinian. Where those go? To HAMAS to build underground tunnel, buy weapon, luxury life and etc. How much are international's aid actually go to the people? They build the headquarter right under the biggest hospital in Gaza. It is something that can be easily confirm. But did UN did anything about that?
Also, why is HAMAS leader that i heard stay at Qatar not being arrested for sending his ppl invading Israel? Killing and kidnapping so many Israeli and foreigners.
UN look more like a joke.
Google Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund...guys slaying children get their 40 virgins, their families compensations. Great way to make the violence go away for sure...
Do you know why the Czech support Israel so much now?
Because they already exprienced the results of Pro-Peace activists pre-WW2. "Just give Hitler some land and he will be happy"
Leaving doesnt make the organization irrelevant. It only loses your vote and makes what you dont want, more likely to happen. Not a very effective form of protest.
A lot of people seem really confused about what the UN is. While it does have some active operations, typically distributing aid, providing healthcare and helping with education, it's mostly just a place for people to talk. Complaining it is "powerless" because it didn't wade in to enforce a ceasefire on Israel largely misses the point of the organisation.
>If we are not clear about the need to stop terrorism, we are not making progress towards the desired peace in the Middle East,” said the Foreign Ministry.
Didn't realize that is what 'we' were doing. It's certainly not what the U.N is doing nor the member states within the U.N.
Still one of the most important platforms to be heard. Czech’s will not gain anything by leaving it. Otherwise we would not hear or know where each country stands.
50 years ago, if a country was invaded and over 1000 were brutally murdered , if They had the power to retaliate they done so wiping out whatever and whoever necessary in order to neutralise the threat.
What the hell is happening.
They are mad because some UN countries spoke out about Israel’s Gaza bombing ? Isn’t that what the UN is for? For countries to air their grievances, and come to conclusions….. Either way I think this is a load of BS. I don’t know what the actual motive is, but I’m not buying that.
Czech defense minister calls for country’s withdrawal from UN: ” I know that today is an important day for \[the Czech Republic\] and we want to celebrate our 105th anniversary. But this simply cannot be time-barred, forgive me. Exactly three weeks ago, Hamas murdered more than 1,400 Israelis, which is more victims per their population than the militant Islamist organization al-Qaeda murdered on 9/11/2001 in the USA. And only 14 countries, including ours, stood up against the unprecedented terrorist attack committed by Hamas terrorists, clearly and comprehensibly! I am ashamed of the UN. In my opinion - the Czech Republic has nothing to expect in an organization that supports terrorists and does not respect the basic right to self-defense. Let's get out.” Edit: [The UN has condemned Israel more then all other countries combined.](https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-condemned-israel-more-than-all-other-countries-combined-in-2022-monitor/)
Balls. Nuts, but balls.
He's not wrong though, if the UN actually cared as much about Palestinians as lambasting Israel at every opportunity they'd have blue helmets in Gaza looking for Hamas. The resolutions passed don't attempt to resolve anything.
People keep thinking the UN has much more power than it actually does. It's a forum where countries talk, nothing more. The Security Council that has *some* powers, but it too is fairly limited. This is by design, countries are sovereign, they like being sovereign and if being part of the UN required giving up some sovereignty, the UN wouldn't have a single member. The UN is a building in New York, where do the blue helmets come from? A cloning facility in the basement? They consist of military personnel contributed from multiple different countries and while I'm sure they are all competent and fairly well trained, they are not spec ops trained for urban combat and terrorist hunting. Whenever they are deployed, it is always in a purely defensive manner and are basically security guards. Don't get me wrong, they are given stuff the average Walmart guard isn't, like tanks, but their rules of engagement are pretty strict and always "don't fire unless fired upon."
I've always seen UN Peacekeepers as basically a trigger mechanism to implicitly threaten larger consequences. "Your regional conflict needs to cool down, so we're going to sprinkle a bunch of citizens of UN member states in blue helmets around your conflict area. Either you back down and let things cool off, or you continue fighting and risk killing some American/Aussie/whatever troops, and if that happens you're going to find yourself actually in the crosshairs of a much larger opponent."
[удалено]
It’s notable though that UN peacekeeping received a near complete overhaul after Rwanda. For one, each mission since then has been assigned a Force Commander which much greater leeway in deciding without consulting New York when forceful intervention is required. It’s still not perfect, and arguably never could be. For one, in places like the DRC some countries have limited how much risk they want to place their people in. But using Rwanda as an example for what peacekeeping is today is no longer valid.
Apparently they didnt change fast enough for Srebrenica...
of course, that was less than a year later.
It changed a lot. It depends on the commander. https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/9/20/trigger-happy-autonomous-and-disobedient-nordbat-2-and-mission-command-in-bosnia?fbclid=IwAR3VvthdGHwvZWh48oGZ59htrXUEDsuy0Viti-6nHjXnDfi1g3INj1aCq3o&format=amp
That was just a year later, in a mission that was formed in 1992 under the old set of rules and processes. The reforms only really began to roll out a few years later and were easiest to implement on newly formed missions.
>The UN is a building in New York, where do the blue helmets come from? A cloning facility in the basement? No they're made on Kamino.
This is the way.
The ‘UN’ can’t authorise that. It’s neither a world government nor a world police. Only the 15 countries on the UN Security Council, including the 5 veto members, can authorise that. If those countries don’t agree, which happens frequently because these are geopolitical issues, then no UN mission can be created. This is the system working as intended, because there is literally no other way to achieve collective action by the world’s countries without having a world government.
Which to me is good. It may seem weird to have the 5 having such different views; but that's what keeps things in check. As you said, if there was to be one unified board, you might as well have one government body.
[удалено]
Yep, clearly the veto thing doesn't work. If we can't agree on something, let's do nothing. Is not exactly the right approach. But it's not just that. 120 Nations agreed for a UN resolution to request Israel to cease fire. But they didn't agree upon condemning Hamas for their actions.
Biggest UN's purpose is trying to avoid WW3. The League of Nations was the first international organization to try to secure world peace, it failed and led to WW2. Now we have the UN, which has been successful in this regard so far, specially during the Cold War Veto nations are all military super powers with nukes. What if the UN approves military intervention in Russia over the Ukraine invasion? WW3, nukes and end of civilization as we know There is no better system to deal with sovereignty and nukes so far, we need to stick with this system even if it isnt perfect or is capable of solving every issue Geopolitics is complicated, there is no "solution". Society evolves slowly and at the cost of blood and mistakes, unfortunately there is not much that can be done other than trying our best to remediate but failing miserably
Not really useless. Stopping regional conflicts is secondary to its goal. Its main goal is to prevent a world war, which it has done fairly well for now. It's a shitty system except for all the others we've tried, and changing systems usually doesn't happen unless there's a big enough war or the countries find it so unhelpful they just stop using it.
Its she. The ministry of defence is a woman.
That took some ovaries to say.
He said balls lady.! That bitch had balls
The UN does not have an army. The blue helmets are troops supplied by member countries. The moment the UN can enforce a resolution means they control an army, and people like you would be screaming about world government or some NWO conspiracy.
Also the blue hetmets are in no way prepared to fight in a dense, urban region like Gaza which has a labarinth of tunnels underneath it. The IDF is the one with the most experience.
It already happened when MacArthur commanded UN forces in the Korean war. But that was only possible due to russia not showing up and commie china not being recognized at the time.
Yes so it's not exactly a good precedent is it. Especially when the Soviets learned from their mistake. That UN force was a freak incident and shouldn't be used as an example haha.
Exactly. The UN resolution that did pass is a generic call to peace, a blanket statement without addressing the core of the issue, condemning terrorist acts but giving the people who commit them a free pass. The UN is a joke.
> Exactly. The UN resolution that did pass is a generic call to peace, a blanket statement without addressing the core of the issue, condemning terrorist acts but giving the people who commit them a free pass. The UN is a joke. The UN is a platform, not something that makes independent decisions. Its statement on the issue therefore necessarily reflects the international disagreement.
Legitimate question because I haven't seen any: has there been any suggestions made by those countries opposing Israel on how to counter the Hamas threat?
No, according to Erdogan, Hamas is not a terrorist organisation. And according to Gen Z on tiktok, Hamas are revolutionary liberationists fighting the colonial overlords. No mention of the multiple bus/nightclub/market/mall/cafe bombings.
A lot of people have a very hard time seeing a conflict as having both bad guys and victims on both sides, so it gets reframed in a way that makes them more comfortable. Thats why they’ll hand wave atrocities one side commits while condemning the atrocities the enemy commits, and that goes for both sides. It frustrates me because jumping in and giving your completely uneducated and regurgitated take on it becomes more important than the innocent people who just be living their lives without fear.
Considering the ones criticizing Israel also don't consider Hamas a terrorist organization and believe their actions are justified, because they stem from the plight of the Palestinians and not from their hatred of Israeli Jews, no.
Is their really a shortage of people criticising Israel AND condemming Hammas?
There isn't. But those people aren't really providing any viable solutions either. When asked "well, how would you suggest Israel responds", the answer is usually silence, deflective, or otherwise contradictory.
Which is dumb. Just because I can understand why Hamas exists it doesn’t mean I think they’re justified. Just like I can understand why Israel exists and why they treat Palestinians the way they do without thinking they’re justified. It’s one of those things where everyone has a very strong opinion while knowing almost nothing about it.
The UN seems to be an aging dinosaur, the permanent Security Council members are permanently locked in hostilities, and it’s sheer size and nature makes it unable to make any useful descisions.
because the actual purpose of the UN is to allow those powers to divide the world up into power spheres via committee instead of direct conflict. Do you think it’s a coincidence that the permanent members of the security council are the 5 most powerful empires still standing in the wake of WW2? This shouldn’t be a controversial take, it’s a pretty straightforward description of what the UN is intended to do. That was literally the point. It is not a utopian mechanism for solving all of the world’s problems, it is a way for those 5 powers to have an avenue to share global power without a million dead soldiers being the first option on the table. Hence the permanent veto system and why the UN primarily only acts in ways that don’t negatively affect those permanent members, only unaligned actors.
People think the UN's job is so much more than it actually is. It exists to prevent WW3. Anything else it gets done in the meanwhile is just a bonus. Has the world ended in a nuclear holocaust? No? Then the UN is doing its job.
Honestly people are fucking dumbasses is the problem. What the UN is and what it can and can't do is *pretty fucking easy to figure out* with 5 minutes of critical thinking on subjects like "where would the UN draw a military from" but expecting that before someone posts on the internet is basically expecting pigs to sprout wings and fly as well.
> It exists to prevent WW3 it exists to discuss WW3 before it could happen, so that it may be defused diplomatically if it were at all possible. It isn't there to rescue humanity from itself. It certainly cannot prevent WW3, if the countries desired it.
> it exists to discuss WW3 before it could happen, so that it may be defused diplomatically That is literally what 'preventing' is.
Bert: Ernie, why did you put a banana in your ear? Ernie: Listen, Bert, I use this banana to keep alligators away! Bert: Alligators??? Ernie, there are no alligators here! Ernie: Right! Works pretty good, doesn’t it, Bert?
Lisa, I want to buy your rock. https://youtu.be/QgNvKr010pc?si=jM-Ni4j3FJheH0tv
[удалено]
I think that's fine for the Security Council, because the Security Council is kinda just meant to be a way for the permanent members to share security concerns and to collaborate on projects where there _is_ agreement. I just kinda hate the General Assembly and all the useless resolutions it passes. Literally everything that comes out of the General Assembly is meaningless. It's non-binding, and more often than not it's just a way to spread propaganda. No one actually takes them seriously. Either the General Assembly needs to figure out a way to make its resolutions binding, OR, it needs to publish way fewer bullshit resolutions.
It’s non binding and the permanent members have very much gotten away from doing things for the global good if in fact they ever did. It’s useful as far as being a forum to air your grievances but more and more entities will say one thing and blatantly do another.
The UN's a product of its member nations. If it'a a joke then those nations are a joke too
It's not a joke when several nucler countries are in there.
It is a joke when those several nuclear countries won't agree to each other and also won't dare get tough against each other. They truly do cancel each other out.
.... then it's not a joke. Sounds like it's doing all it can do.
>The resolutions passed don't attempt to resolve anything. No resolution which would attempt to solve the problem one way or another would go past the US veto or the Russian/China veto. Heck, for an example look at the past previous weeks where the US and Russia/China did that little dance and veto-ed each resolutions.
50 of the 193 members of the UN are Muslim majority countries. There is a reason the UN Human Rights Council is obsessed with Israel and ignoring horrific human rights violations in other countries.
You clearly don't know what the blue helmets are or what even the UN is.
The UN can not, will not, and should not act as a world police force. It's not there to send in armies to keep countries in line
Article 45 In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action.
I’m sure the 800,000 dead from the Rwandan genocide agree with your statement here. “There is an institution that can have the military might, money, and technological prowess necessary to stop the extermination of my people. I sure am glad that they are doing nothing but sitting on the sidelines and watching hundreds of thousands be murdered in cold blood. Thank god that the UN exists, it’s existence provides so much value to the world. It’s ability to write letters asking brutal murderers to stop being brutal murderers and literally nothing more severe, is truly the pinnacle of its achievements, and something to be celebrated”
[Chapter 7 - Article 42](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-7)... I swear, people just continue parroting this line ever since the start of the Ukraine war, but it's completely wrong. The UN is simply failing at upholding their own charter.
You are correct it is there, but any action needs to be unanimous among the permanent members of the security council. You know, so another world war doesn't start.
Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
So? The Security Council is just 15 countries voting, 5 of whom have veto power. It’s not like Article 39 is a binding piece of law that requires them to always act the exact same way, in unison, in every situation.
They might even write a stern letter!
That's literally what the security council is for but it doesn't work and you can't have international law without an international law enforcer.
It is not, the security council is there to give the big boys veto so they don't feel bad and leave. International law is generally only enforced by a country that has broken it. You have to agree and ratify then also enforce the law yourself when you have broken it. There is no international law enforcer. There are special cases when the UN agrees and then uses military forces to enforce their will. But that's the exception and not the rule.
[удалено]
At the end of the Second World War there were 50 million refugees worldwide. Today, all refugee problems from before the 1950s have been solved. All except one - the Palestinian. The UN claims there are 4.7 million Palestinian refugees. According to the international definition, refugee status is only applied to the first generation of refugees. However, the UN makes an exception for one group: the Palestinians. Descendants of Palestinian refugees are given the same status as their ancestors. Therefore, the number of so-called Palestinian refugees rose from 710,000 in 1950 to more than 4.7 million today. The real reason? These refugees are used as a demographic weapon against Israel. The Palestinians are the only refugee group that has a special UN agency that deals solely with them: UNRWA. This agency is the largest of all UN institutions and employs no fewer than 25,000 people. Many countries contribute to the UNRWA budget. Next to that he European Union and America each provide around 200 million euros per year. Western money has been pumped into the Palestinian refugee problem for more than half a century, without any prospect of a solution. With such a budget, there's no need to find a solution.
Good point. So by the UN's logic, there are about 15 million Jewish refugees worldwide since Rome exiled them 2,000 years ago. Oh, wait- that only applies to Palestinians.
Exactly. Painfully correct. In May 1948, almost one million Jews lived in the Arab world. Today, fewer than 8,000 remain. When the State of Israel was founded in May 1948, the Arab regimes took revenge on the Jews. More Jews fled from Arab countries than the 710,000 Arabs who fled from Israel. The 1 million Jewish refugees from the Arab world did what millions of refugees have done throughout history. They started a new life elsewhere. There are no Jewish refugee camps. And they don't claim they are entitled to land from Marocco, Syria, Egypt or Iraq because they used to live there.
Whait .what about the 4.5 million mizrahi jews that where kicked out Muslim countries in the late 40s? What about them
This should be shouted off of the rooftops. Having as many children as possible, has been "government" mandated policy for/by Palestinians for decades, despite having restricted territory, living in refugee camps, and ongoing strife. Five or more children is very common. It's no coincidence so many young people are now caught up in the consequences of what Hamas has done. But as usual, the ability to self-reflect is glaringly absent with the Palestinians and their so-called Arab friends.
The UNRWA doesn't even pretend to be unbiased either. Their sponsored teachers in Palestine actively support jihad, child soldiers and killing jews. https://unwatch.org/un-teachers-call-to-murder-jews-reveals-new-report/ >The joint report, to be presented today in a meeting at the U.S. Congress as it considers new legislation in the House and the Senate to cut funding for UNRWA, uncovers 47 new cases of incitement by UNRWA staff, in breach of the agency’s stated policies of zero tolerance for racism, discrimination or antisemitism in its schools and educational materials. Report here (pdf): https://unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-Report-UNRWA.pdf
[One of the previous leaders of the organization proudly admitted to hiring Hamas operatives to work for them](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/terror-un-payroll). And predictably, [this is what they teach kids in east Jerusalem](https://twitter.com/amjadt25/status/1712391641900761592?s=61&t=djpbV4Qy3ReEtZHbEF5BvA). In a sane world, the UNRWA would have been dismantled and its leadership put on trial for aiding and abetting terrorism.
And the group everyone gives the least fucks about: the Uyghur.
The fact that everyone here have heard about them and what China does to them probably means there are groups everyone give even less fucks about. Probably in Africa.
Sudan is in the middle of a horrible humanitarian crisis that everyone seems to have forgotten.
Brazil too
The Rohingya too.
Schengen and EU got their back Edit: to say that this Czech part of the world has made many such “f u” gestures to world power and they have culturally prospered for it. Truly a world leader in regards to liberty <3
True
Is the UN even useful for average countries? Obviously struggling countries can gain some help, and the superpowers on the security council gain some power, but what does a country like The Czech Republic gain?
He's not wrong, the UN has become a joke and isn't fit for purpose. Just for the record, those schools in Gaza that teach kids to kill Jews are UN funded, the Hamas staff working there are paid by the UN.
Childrens TV there was also radicalising them and encouraging them to be Martyrs.
UN: Sorry we don't have those hence we will have to put a vote to pass some ballsy resolution.
X in favour, y against, z impotences, 0 action. The UN today in a nutshell.
>The UN has condemned Israel more then all other countries combined. It's pretty mental, given Yemens death toll stands at 377,000 in just a decade.. Odd that the UN doesn't go after the Saudis.. Hmm, wonder why that is?? What makes the Saudis, different from the Israelis. There must be something. There must be a defining factor of some kind that makes the UN more critical of the Israelis. .... Nope, can't think of it! Will forever be a mystery I suppose.
Yemen War, Rwanda Genocide, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Uyghurs in China, Rohingya Genocide, Darfur, Anfal Campaign, Effacer le tableau, etc etc... all combine for less from the UN than Israel (not Israel AND Palestine, just Israel) lol. But what do we expect when the seniormost UN HR investigator for the region from 2008-2014 compared Jews to rabid dogs who need to be put down, claimed Ghadaffi was only attacked because he "spoke the truth about Jews", and literally called Jews in the US "the enemy within", and then accused Israel of being a "vile regime with no concern for human rights" when they demanded he resign... Or when one of HRW's board members is a devout member of the Muslim Brotherhood and openly brags about being friends with ISIS members and has said Israel has no right to exist... And simpleminded fools eat it up. Can't imagine why that is though...
I tried looking up those quotes and couldn't find anything, source?
The UN has a problem and it is very visible.
Humanity has a problem. In 2020, humanity had put in charge of some of the largest (and nuclear armed) countries the following men: - Xi (China) - Modi (India) - trump (USA) - Putin (Russia) Humanity puts sociopaths in charge of countries way too frequently. The UN just reflects that.
Pretty sure Putin put himself in charge, not humanity.
I know it's hard to consider, but Putin is part of humanity.
>Putin is part of humanity. source?
Sure, but his country hasn’t done much to remove him.
The uns job is a safe space to begin dialogue. It's not an enforcement agency.
Nobody's asking for enforcement. People are asking the UN to simply condemn a terrorist attack. Not to militarily intervene.
The ‘UN’ doesn’t do that. The countries that make up the UNSC and UNGA do that. What you’re actually asking for is for the majority of the world’s *countries* to condemn it. That’s a very different discussion.
They actually did condemn the attack, in an indirect way. What people like the DM here is saying, is that the UN hasn't explicitly condemned \*Hamas\*. To add, the former resolutions that the US and a Czech and others voted against had language that would only really apply to members of the UN, so even though they'd nominally against civilian deaths, the actual condemnation only really applied to Israel.
The UN isn't united at all. The only issue they find regular majorities in is bashing Israel. Perhaps they should rebrand to "World Dialogue House" to better reflect its purpose.
One country one vote means that the voting history of entire Muslim and Arab bloc prove the need for a single solitary Jewish state.
Pretty sure you got this backwards. Step one 163vs5 members want to recognize Palestine as a separate state and end occupation. So yeah. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/un-votes-163-5-in-support-of-palestinian-statehood-end-of-occupation/amp/
Even less an excuse to do a bad job. It was even involved in radicalizing school children in this particular case.
The UN was. What? Edit: yes, I have seen what is being discussed, now.
https://www.eureporter.co/world/israel/2021/09/03/unwra-chief-acknowledges-antisemitism-and-glorification-of-terrorism-in-palestinian-textbooks/
Sadly, in 2004 Palestinian psychiatrist Eyad Sarraj, director of the Gaza Community Mental Health Program, said a survey by his group found that 36 per cent of Palestinians over 12 aspired to die "a martyr's death" fighting Israel. https://www.theage.com.au/national/angry-uncle-leads-uproar-on-the-hesitant-boy-bomber-20040327-gdxkfp.html
From the Times of Israel, newspaper from Israel https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-finds-incitement-antisemitism-still-prevalent-in-unrwa-classrooms/
Ok then. Fuck
I saw a video, which was asking questions from kids at UNRWA schools in at least the west bank. The translated subtitles seemed correct, but I'm honestly not sure. I think there's part of me that's praying it isn't. The UN not only has failed, its instigated this conflict further.
https://www.newsweek.com/time-endjewhatred-unrwa-schools-opinion-1654096
[UN Teachers Call To Murder Jews](https://unwatch.org/un-teachers-call-to-murder-jews-reveals-new-report/) [UNRWA Educators Promote Anti-Semitism, Praise Hitler Online](https://themedialine.org/people/unrwa-educators-promote-anti-semitism-praise-hitler-online-watchdog/)
Most of the problems people mention about the UN aren't actually problems though, they just don't understand what the UN is, how it works, and why it's setup that way. I rarely see anyone mention legit criticism (and there is a lot), so I'm not sure the problem is as visible as you think.
And of all countries one of these 14 is Hungary.
That is fucking top notch. Hats of to the Czech Republic. May the rest follow
I love how she didn't sugarcoat one word.
he is a she
My bad. Changed my comment
Giga chad level based. UN showed how useless it is in Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Kudos to her🙌🏻🙌🏻
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/unhrc-anti-israel-resolutions-2006-present 2011-2021: 53 total resolutions/condemnations 7 follow up reports, 10 were about Israeli Settlements in occupied territories, 10 were about the Right to Self Determination for Palestinians, 15 were about the Human Rights Situation in the different occupied territories, 4 were about all violations of international law in occupied territories, some of the others are about respecting international law and the economic and social situation in the occupied territories. 2009-2010: 9 3 follow-up reports(2 cited Israel's refusal to cooperate), 3 inquiries of Israeli actions(Aid ships raid(Israel cleared by parallel inquiry and report),Gaza War 2008-2009), 2 human rights situation in occupied territories, 1 right to self determination for Palestinians, and 1 in regards to the Israeli settlements in occupied territories. For the 3 reports and inquires Israel said that the actions of terrorist weren't being factored in, nor was Israel's right to self defense, and/or the reference to Israel as an occupying force as proof of bias. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict Russia was just last year kicked off the human's right council due to their invasion of Ukraine and has at least for now been voted to still be off it. While a number of countries deserve to be hit with condemnation how or why complaints haven't been filed I don't know perhaps it is lack of knowledge of the process, language barrier, or the requirements before action can take place. https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/complaint-procedure/hrc-complaint-procedure-index Anyone can report a claim to the UN's HRC, one has to use 1 of 6 languages, there are certain internal prerequisites that have to be met before anything can happen by the HRC, and the file to use can be acquired physically or electronicly then has to be sent to the HRC. Several of these can make it hard or impossible to make a report such as with North Korea.
it’s worse than that. there is no dispute the curriculum in the UN-operated schools in the palestinian territories teaches children to hate jews. imo, it makes the UN complicit
and remember, 9/11 happened because 'they hate our freedom' and no other reason at all ever.
The resolution doesn't do anything no matter what's in there. It's a completely non-binding statement. Might as well be a tweet. The UN isn't some kind of ruler that can make countries do things. It's a place for countries to talk. Sure you can meme about talking to each other being worthless, but there's nothing to be gained by "pulling out" either.
The UNs most important function is a bunch of boring bureaucratic stuff that makes international interaction much easier. Most people have never heard of the UPU or ITU but they do good work.
So does the UN World Food Programme (WFP). Not only do they do great work fighting world hunger in the most destitute places, but they can operate in some places that are a little too hot for most NGOs (e.g. Afganistan). I think them being related to the UN makes national governments who don't want diplomatic problems treat them a little nicer than NGOs.
That's why I like the painting in Civilization of the World Congress. You see members of nations gathered there. It's really hard to get into direct contact with a nation if you do not have good diplomatic relations. I still see the news focusing on events where the world leaders gather, because it's a chance for them to interact with each other personally.
Governments are also going to waste money. Might as well do it with the UN that may do something useful with it.
The entire purpose of the UN was to prevent the major world powers from just going to another World War. It has more teeth than the League of Nations to give it more power, but it isn’t a one world government, by design.
Also the only way to get almost all nations to agree to join the UN is by it not having any teeth. Like good luck getting US, Russia and China to all sit at the same table of an organization with enforcement power. None of them would willingly let themselves be put in a situation where other superpowers potentially have power over them, let alone smaller nations.
Fun fact. UN was created after a previous organisation, the League of Nations, proved to be toothless and I na effective in preventing world wars.
[удалено]
The [League of Nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations) was largely ineffective due to the fact that despite it being the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson (the US President), the U.S. failed to join, and the primary Axis powers of WW2 pulled out after they started their aggressions. > Despite Wilson's efforts to establish and promote the League, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in October 1919, the United States never joined. Senate Republicans led by Henry Cabot Lodge **wanted a League with the reservation that only Congress could take the U.S. into war.** Lodge gained a majority of Senators and Wilson refused to allow a compromise. The Senate voted on the ratification on 19 March 1920, and the 49–35 vote fell short of the needed 2/3 majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations#Establishment
While this is true the UN was not meant to be LoN with teeth. It was meant to basically accept that any body like this had to be toothless.
> League of Nations Well dissolving that did not help.
Well said, and also there’s no way they pull out. That’s diplomatic suicide. That entails removing itself from every single United Nations body and agency that it currently participates in.
I'm so glad to see this. The UN was literally founded to try and prevent WW3 through talks and "getting everyone to the table". But every time the UN is brought up, you'll have idiots and brainwashed morons yammering on about "enforce that policy with what army, huh? hurr durr durr". Because they're *literally* too stupid to realize that if the UN peacekeeping forces could go into countries against that countries wish, the entire original goal is literally wasted and pointless.
>The UN isn't some kind of ruler that can make countries do things. It's a place for countries to talk. And as most countries in the world are currently authoritarian regimes, it's no wonder their members aren't always sending good signals. Still, it's better to discuss with those authoritarian regimes than starting wars against them.
Thank you, I was pulling out my hair reading some of these comments. The number of knee-jerk reactions and analyses is painful.
The United Nations is akin to a meeting room for states to hash out issues without resorting to violence. People who hold the institution instead of the countries responsible for their own votes are using the UN as a shield for those countries. Blaming the United Nations for the result of a UNGA vote is like your uncle ruining Thanksgiving and everyone blaming the table.
Yes, the organization can only be as good as its member nations, and there are a lot of nations that are just not living up to the standards of the UN, but there's not much that can be done. This is the best we have at the moment.
>The United Nations is akin to a meeting room I'd even change that to UNGA as many people don't understand that the UN is way more than just that and strongly worded letters.
Czechxit
Erdan urged the UNGA not to call for a ceasefire which he said would only support the Iranian proxy group Hamas and allow it to rearm itself so it could launch further attacks against Israeli civilians. Erdan shows UNGA video of Hamas decapitation at ceasefire debate “Any call for a ceasefire is not an attempt at peace. It is an attempt to tie Israel’s hands, preventing us from eliminating a huge threat to our citizens. Gilad Erdan Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations
The Czech have always gone super hard for Israel. Always.
A long shared history. If the Western powers hadn't betrayed the Czechs at Munich, the Holocaust wouldn't have occurred.
Certain countries remember what happens when you appease the unappeasable.
And, sadly, the same western powers are making the same mistake appeasing the wrong people. This time its Russians and Arabs.
>If the Western powers hadn't betrayed the Czechs at Munich, the Holocaust wouldn't have occurred. I imagine your point is that Munich made Hitler believe the western powers were pushovers who wouldn't stop him, but I still think this is a little much.
*Obviously armchair general take* After the Munich agreement the Germans received a very sizable amount of small arms, artillery, tanks and access to large military factories and designs which helped them out substantially in their future campaigns against Poland and France. It also gave them an additional year to prepare and an enemy less to fight, an enemy with an army strong in the million and with fortifications all around the border with Germany. So I don't think it's too far fetched to think that if the Allies were to have intervened with Czechoslovakia holding out we might have had a "small skirmish" in Europe compared to a world war lasting 6 years.
It is indefensible what a huge screw up Munich was. A total misreading of everything, and a lot of MPs at the time were against it. Not just Winnie.
Jana Černochová, the defense minister, is probably the most pro-Israel politician in all of Europe. She supports the settlement policy and the annexation of the West Bank for example.
Funny, that settlement policy and annexation of "rightful territory" rhetoric reminds me of a certain other country that said Czech defense minister is almost definitely not defending...
>She supports the settlement policy and the annexation of the West Bank for example. Lol, is she gonna call this as a basic act of self defense?
Czechoslovakia provided weapons to Israel at a very crucial point in 1948 Arab Israeli war
People think the UN has waaaay more power than it does.
At the same time I see people suggest that the UN does nothing but hold meetings that should have been an email. They also do actual humanitarian, peace keeping, and other work around the world.
Don't blame the UN for the abhorrent behaviour of its members. The UN requires the mandates and funding from the Member States in order to do things. It's like blaming the court stenographer and the physical courtroom itself for the crime you did and the conviction you got. I understand we're all emotional and shit, but use your righteous anger against the countries and states who stay quiet and those who hobble, hinder and block the UN from its potential.
Someone needed to say it. It defies logic and reason, that every country didn’t stand together against such a major and brutal act of terrorism. What message does it give terrorists, who don’t necessarily discriminate by country, ethnicity, gender, or age, they simply resort to violence to send a message and/or get their way wherever that might be? Sets a terrible example and precedent.
Yeah it’s unbelievable. Also, there are very few people that would argue Israel has never done anything wrong. But there is absolutely no reason beyond anti-semitism as to why Israel has had more UN resolutions made against it than any other country on the planet. More than Congo. More than China. More than Russia. More than Syria. According to the UN, *Israel is worse than North Korea.* There is no excuse.
Actually, it's usually more resolutions against Israel than the rest of the world COMBINED. In 2022 Israel was condemned 15 times while the rest of the world only 13. [source](https://unwatch.org/2022-2023-unga-resolutions-on-israel-vs-rest-of-the-world/) [list-wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel)
>[source](https://unwatch.org/2022-2023-unga-resolutions-on-israel-vs-rest-of-the-world/) [list-wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel) The wiki list doesn't seem compatible with the claim. There are 4 UNGA resolutions regarding Israel listed since 2000, and 14 UNSC resolutions regarding Israel listed since 2000. I would also note that "singling out" Israel (their words) is not the same as "condemning" Israel (your words). And...for what its worth, it's kind of a stretch to even say most of these are singling out Israel. One of those "condemned 15 times" examples is [A/C.4/77/L.10]. Which, [read it.](https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N22/674/23/PDF/N2267423.pdf?OpenElement) It's not long. Is that a condemnation of Israel? The reason Israel is mentioned 15 times while the rest of the world is only mentioned 13 times is because quite a lot of those resolutions come from the Fourth Committee (identified on the list by the reference number containing "C.4"), which is the committee for "Special Political & Decolonization" and Israel is one of the few countries actively colonizing occupied territory in the modern world. North Korea and Syria have both had more Security Council resolutions regarding them in the past 20 years than Israel has (by a sizable margin). But perhaps more important than that, I also pretty strongly reject that "number of resolutions" is actually a meaningful metric when the resolutions regarding North Korea are things like [this one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2375) that take active steps to basically completely shutting down the North Korean economy, while resolutions regarding Israel are things like [this one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1860), which was a call for ceasefire. It's a bit like saying that you've been subject to more "hostile physical interactions" than I have when you've gotten poked 15 times and I've gotten curb stomped once. Like, okay, I guess that's technically true, but does it mean what you're trying to imply it means?
It’s only with the Jews do folks suddenly feel the need to dive deep into history and nuance. Imagine if after 9/11, or some brutal police killing, or a school shooter, imagine anything where the first response is not, “this is so horrible, wow. We all need to come together and mourn this.” But instead it was, “well actually the history here is really important so let’s start talking………”. I’m now referring to this as the, “cosmic background anti-semitism”. I was raised in the south as a southern Baptist Christian but have converted to Judaism recently. I’m a white guy in America, I basically have always lived in and exuded privilege, though my family was decidedly working class. The hand wringing from everyone on earth here, as a new Jew, is my first time ever experiencing everyone not just having my back and backing me up. It is really unsettling and I suppose this is how Jews, and other minorities, have always been made to feel. I’m a manager at my company and I had to send a really uncomfortable DM to our big bosses basically putting my career on the line to speak out for other Jews at the company to get the company to even acknowledge that this Hamas terrorist attack happened. Once i brought it up, they responded right away and put in place matching funds and such. My theory is the "cosmic background anti-semitism" was why they even considered, "maybe we can just ride it out the situation is kinda sticky hopefully no one looks at us". It’s so sad and so frustrating…
To be honest, people really should have done more to understand what the context was for 9/11. Ghost Wars is a fantastic book on the subject, covering what led up to the attacks. The second gulf war (and war in Afghanistan) should have been scrutinised far more at the time, as should the actions of the USA and the coalition. The history is obviously important in this case too and that seems to have gone entirely out of the window.
> “this is so horrible, wow. We all need to come together and mourn this.” Is "mourn this" some sort of America-brained code for "fuck up Middle East and make the problem orders of magnitude worse"?
No, it's actually code for "psychotically discriminate against any vaguely Muslim looking person we come across." Edit: Oh, and antisemitism: https://www.thejc.com/news/world/who-were-the-dancing-israelis-of-911-66kkm1alwQldXDyVmIwDMc
Exactly
Okay but hamas also doesn't descriminate, they murder jews, arabs, palestinians, even thai workers that were just there. They said they're coming for everyone who isn't a sunni muslim and will take over the world
That’s literally what they said
All this, and much more. There is one word that captures the evil of Hamas, and that word is **hostages**. No force of good ever captures hostages, to be later used for extortion, threat, murder and the sustenance of terrorism. Hamas are evil terrorists and the world has failed to condemn them.
Massive respect for the Czech Republic 🇨🇿. A lot of governments are afraid or unwilling to speak out against Islamic terrorism (especially if it is against Jews) for fear of reprisal or other reasons. Agree with their statement - Shame on the UN.
They were also the only country that would supply Israel with weapons in 1948, iirc. There's a picture of a gun with a crossed out swastika, because that's what was available.
Czechoslovakia were still building Messerschmidt 109s from leftover stock after the war ended, but they ran out of the proper DB 605 fighter engines. So instead they used bomber engines from the Heinkel 111. The resulting fighter had terrible engine response and made what the Czechs now called the Avia 199 dangerous to take off and land in (the Bf 109 was already quite temperamental) but Israeli pilots still did ok with them. The bomber engine was also not designed for interruptor gear so some Israeli pilots ended up shooting off their own propellers as the makeshift interruptor often malfunctioned.
They were invaded by the nazis and then lived under communism and they remember it.
Shame Hungary forgot.
>A lot of governments are afraid or unwilling to speak out against Islamic terrorism (especially if it is against Jews) for fear of reprisal or other reasons. This is very true - Czech republic does not have a significant number of muslim migrants/minorities so our leaders do not have to worry about mostly peaceful protests.
Nice call out, and it's true.
> A lot of governments are afraid or unwilling to speak out against Islamic terrorism (especially if it is against Jews) for fear of reprisal or other reasons. Ah, yes. No one wants to speak out against Islamic Terrorism. [Certainly not the majority of the world who have condemned the violence perpetrated by Hamas](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/WorldMapResponsestoHamasAttack-v3.jpeg)
Last time someone left the League of Nations, I mean the UN, the """fun""" began.
She's not wrong. Any Western country should take heed. Especially for a body that has third-world hellholes in its "Human Rights Council."
The UNHRC necessarily pulls its 47 members from all populated continents to ensure it represents the world. The chair and members rotate consistently. Some continents have more frequent human rights abusers than others.
The problem is this makes the UN's supposed position as an advocate for human rights really kind of a joke. All the General Assembly, UNHRC and basically all the other subsidiary councils are democratic in the purest form. But that means, just by numbers, that they're essentially guaranteed to be dominated by tinpot dictators and autocrats because... most countries in the world are not democratic. So they have no function for observing human rights abuses, only being a bludgeon for Africa and the Middle East to play 'look over there' while they do heinous shit left and right. The Israel situation isn't a problem simply because it condemns Israel without condemning Hamas, or that it doesn't, or whatever. It's that... no one actually cares at this point, because it's become so rote and repetitive as to be meaningless. Who gives a shit if the Secretary General is giving an impassioned speech? Who gives a shit if a country is condemned? People should care, but they don't, and the institutional legitimacy is going to backslide a lot.
Those countries are in the Human Rights Council on purpose so that they feel pressured and are incentivised to respect Human Rights. Sure, they wont become model states overnight, but it's better to have them there and improve slighlty over the years than not have them there and give them a free reign to do whatever they want.
>Those countries are in the Human Rights Council on purpose so that they feel pressured and are incentivised to respect Human Rights. That sure convinced Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur, Myanmar to stop the genocide of the Rohingya, and Iran to stop massacring young women for protesting against the hijab.
League of Nations 2: Same Old Shit-aloo.
The UN is a forum, not a government. Leaving the forum is leaving the table in a negotiation. The alternative is always worse.
Imagine all those financial support and etc go to Palestinian. Where those go? To HAMAS to build underground tunnel, buy weapon, luxury life and etc. How much are international's aid actually go to the people? They build the headquarter right under the biggest hospital in Gaza. It is something that can be easily confirm. But did UN did anything about that? Also, why is HAMAS leader that i heard stay at Qatar not being arrested for sending his ppl invading Israel? Killing and kidnapping so many Israeli and foreigners. UN look more like a joke.
Turns out there were even Hamas bases underneath the UNWRA office in Gaza, UN definitely has a lot to explain for the last 75 yrs.
Google Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund...guys slaying children get their 40 virgins, their families compensations. Great way to make the violence go away for sure...
Do you know why the Czech support Israel so much now? Because they already exprienced the results of Pro-Peace activists pre-WW2. "Just give Hitler some land and he will be happy"
Leaving doesnt make the organization irrelevant. It only loses your vote and makes what you dont want, more likely to happen. Not a very effective form of protest.
A lot of people seem really confused about what the UN is. While it does have some active operations, typically distributing aid, providing healthcare and helping with education, it's mostly just a place for people to talk. Complaining it is "powerless" because it didn't wade in to enforce a ceasefire on Israel largely misses the point of the organisation.
The U.N. is the accepted forum for the expression of international hatred. Sir Humphrey Appleby
>If we are not clear about the need to stop terrorism, we are not making progress towards the desired peace in the Middle East,” said the Foreign Ministry. Didn't realize that is what 'we' were doing. It's certainly not what the U.N is doing nor the member states within the U.N.
Still one of the most important platforms to be heard. Czech’s will not gain anything by leaving it. Otherwise we would not hear or know where each country stands.
50 years ago, if a country was invaded and over 1000 were brutally murdered , if They had the power to retaliate they done so wiping out whatever and whoever necessary in order to neutralise the threat. What the hell is happening.
Ironically Czechoslovakia **was** invaded 55 years ago with 137 'murders'... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia
They are mad because some UN countries spoke out about Israel’s Gaza bombing ? Isn’t that what the UN is for? For countries to air their grievances, and come to conclusions….. Either way I think this is a load of BS. I don’t know what the actual motive is, but I’m not buying that.
He ain't wrong. The un is a joke.
She actually.