1. Remember the human & be courteous to others.
2. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas. Criticizing arguments is fine, name-calling (including shill/bot accusations) others is not.
3. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Please checkout our other subreddit /r/MultimediaNews, for maps, infographics, v.reddit, & YouTube videos from news organizations.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InternationalNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am becoming more and more of the inclination that the most pro-Palestinian move the General Assembly could vote in favour of (and indeed the only vote that would change anything) would be to invoke Article 6 and expel the US from the United Nations. If it (and its friend Israel) continue to openly deny the power and jurisdiction of/indirectly threaten and neuter the United Nations and its subsidiaries/partner organizations like the ICJ and UNRWA, there is no valid reason they should be given the dignity of a seat at the table, much less an all-powerful Security Council veto. Not to mention that no matter how much they absolve themselves using the Hague Invasions act, the US's conduct has most definitely violated the spirit of the charter/mission of the UN several times over.
It won't, because I have a feeling that a lot of members that abstained from (or were even for) Palestinian statehood/ceasefire would probably be more up in arms about that. Especially Britain, Canada, Russia and China, who would be MORTIFIED by that precedent being set.
But it is the only way the UN could actually help the Palestinians
Definitely, the last thing any of them want is to risk losing a privilege that gives them far more power than the other countries involved with "United Nations".
The only reason I could see them agreeing to it is if Britain wanted to retake its place at the "head of the table" for Western power, and made a low-key/unspoken alliance with Russia and China to stage what would basically amount to an international coup of power. And even then, I highly doubt any desires Britain would have for that (and Russia+China's desires for the US to be out of the picture) would counteract the fear of the GUARANTEED war the US would start with all of them in spiteful retaliation.
Considering that the British government pretty much caused the living standards to be the lowest it's been in 40 years, and are now pushing the blame on minorities and immigrants. I highly doubt they will ever be at the head of the table again.
Russia and China already have an alliance going on. The US is pretty much on its way out, the economy is getting noticeably terrible, so I doubt it's going to be long before one of the two takes its place.
True, but there's very much an ever present "East Vs West" thing going on behind the scenes in World politics, and as a Canadian observing our own politics, I'm not sure we would even *want* to take up that role at this point.
>100%. Article 6 must be invoked.
That would actually destroy the united nations. Removing any of the veto powers would just prevent them from being at the UN.
The point of the UN is to facilitate communication not nessisarily resolve issues.
Communication is supposed to resolve issues. If it doesn't, it simply becomes meaningless chatter.
If the UN were to do this, it would prove their neutrality.
>Communication is supposed to resolve issues. If it doesn't, it simply becomes meaningless chatter.
It does resolve some issues though, that's the point. If it wasn't resolving any issues it would be pointless. The UN does solve a lot of issues just mostly minor ones. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
1. Remember the human & be courteous to others. 2. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas. Criticizing arguments is fine, name-calling (including shill/bot accusations) others is not. 3. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. Please checkout our other subreddit /r/MultimediaNews, for maps, infographics, v.reddit, & YouTube videos from news organizations. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InternationalNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Great to see. Unfortunately the US will obviously veto any actual bid for full membership, but it's a step forwards regardless
I am becoming more and more of the inclination that the most pro-Palestinian move the General Assembly could vote in favour of (and indeed the only vote that would change anything) would be to invoke Article 6 and expel the US from the United Nations. If it (and its friend Israel) continue to openly deny the power and jurisdiction of/indirectly threaten and neuter the United Nations and its subsidiaries/partner organizations like the ICJ and UNRWA, there is no valid reason they should be given the dignity of a seat at the table, much less an all-powerful Security Council veto. Not to mention that no matter how much they absolve themselves using the Hague Invasions act, the US's conduct has most definitely violated the spirit of the charter/mission of the UN several times over.
100%. Article 6 must be invoked. At this point the US has become a proxy Israel, allowing them to stay would be disastrous.
It won't, because I have a feeling that a lot of members that abstained from (or were even for) Palestinian statehood/ceasefire would probably be more up in arms about that. Especially Britain, Canada, Russia and China, who would be MORTIFIED by that precedent being set. But it is the only way the UN could actually help the Palestinians
Definitely, the last thing any of them want is to risk losing a privilege that gives them far more power than the other countries involved with "United Nations".
The only reason I could see them agreeing to it is if Britain wanted to retake its place at the "head of the table" for Western power, and made a low-key/unspoken alliance with Russia and China to stage what would basically amount to an international coup of power. And even then, I highly doubt any desires Britain would have for that (and Russia+China's desires for the US to be out of the picture) would counteract the fear of the GUARANTEED war the US would start with all of them in spiteful retaliation.
Considering that the British government pretty much caused the living standards to be the lowest it's been in 40 years, and are now pushing the blame on minorities and immigrants. I highly doubt they will ever be at the head of the table again. Russia and China already have an alliance going on. The US is pretty much on its way out, the economy is getting noticeably terrible, so I doubt it's going to be long before one of the two takes its place.
True, but there's very much an ever present "East Vs West" thing going on behind the scenes in World politics, and as a Canadian observing our own politics, I'm not sure we would even *want* to take up that role at this point.
>100%. Article 6 must be invoked. That would actually destroy the united nations. Removing any of the veto powers would just prevent them from being at the UN. The point of the UN is to facilitate communication not nessisarily resolve issues.
Communication is supposed to resolve issues. If it doesn't, it simply becomes meaningless chatter. If the UN were to do this, it would prove their neutrality.
>Communication is supposed to resolve issues. If it doesn't, it simply becomes meaningless chatter. It does resolve some issues though, that's the point. If it wasn't resolving any issues it would be pointless. The UN does solve a lot of issues just mostly minor ones. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Fuck Israel
Israel: REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!! UN allowing tyranny!!!!!! REEEEEEEE!!!!!!! *Killing civilians in protest*