Top diplomats debated the deepening crisis in the Gaza Strip and the whole Middle East in the UN Security Council on Tuesday against the backdrop of Israel’s unrelenting military operation, mounting death toll and escalating global calls for an immediate ceasefire. The UN Secretary-General told ambassadors and foreign ministers that any refusal to accept a two-State solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict "must be firmly rejected", as the Council is poised to reconvene on Wednesday afternoon to hear more from the wider UN membership.
“This refusal [of a two-state solution], and the denial of the right to statehood to the Palestinian people, would indefinitely prolong a conflict that has become a major threat to global peace and security,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres says.
UN council members roundly called for the two-State solution to be realized and for an end to the war, with many calling for an immediate ceasefire to end the suffering of Palestinians and allow the aid they urgently need to be delivered unhindered.
Many speakers from the wider UN membership echoed those calls.
The veto power is the truly horrendous idea that’s the nail in the coffin for the UN. It’s based on neither the representation of population, nor on justice. Rather, it’s based on military might and the ability to bully the other nations. Even neglecting the fact that the world order is subject to change and challenges, it’s hardly surprising that any nation takes the UN seriously with such a petulant assertion of authority. Whoever came up with that idea isn’t a visionary of world peace - but rather a moron drunk on the kool-aid of ensuring world peace through the military might of a few over the self respect of the rest.
This is a misunderstanding of the UN’s primary purpose. The UN is a diplomatic organization meant to enable a baseline minimum amount of diplomatic interaction. It’s primary raison d’etre is preventing a world war / nuclear war. If military might was not respected, then nations would leave the negotiating table and large wars would be harder to avoid. The veto was instrumental in establishing the UN in the first place.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
The veto power is the truly horrendous idea that’s the nail in the coffin for the UN. It’s based on neither the representation of population, nor on justice. Rather, it’s based on military might and the ability to bully the other nations. Even neglecting the fact that the world order is subject to change and challenges, it’s hardly surprising that any nation takes the UN seriously with such a petulant assertion of authority. Whoever came up with that idea isn’t a visionary of world peace - but rather a moron drunk on the kool-aid of ensuring world peace through the military might of a few over the self respect of the rest.
This is a misunderstanding of the UN’s primary purpose. The UN is a diplomatic organization meant to enable a baseline minimum amount of diplomatic interaction. It’s primary raison d’etre is preventing a world war / nuclear war. If military might was not respected, then nations would leave the negotiating table and large wars would be harder to avoid. The veto was instrumental in establishing the UN in the first place.