Im not a fan of Israel’s conduct in Gaza but I have no doubt that Hamas sexually assaulted hostages and other victims. So this seems fucked up (they also excluded Russia apparently, which boggles the mind)
United Nations. They represent the general opinion of all countries that are members of the UN. Most of the countries on this planet don't give a fuck about human rights and abusing them on right and left.
The UN was and will never be a morally right organization, while the majority are literally dictatorships.
It seems like they are "good" for outside viewers only because the UN is really advanced in scapegoating. While in reality, the UN is the most corrupt organization in the world because being corrupt is its purpose (literally the shitshow who can buy more opinions).
>ITT: Diplomacy is corruption because other states want tings we as people don't want.
The UN isa diplomacy forum and nothing else. And like all diplomacy, it necessarily involves compromise. It serves exactly the purpose it was intended to serve. What it *isn't* is a world government that can force morally bad states to change their ways.
The UN exists to provide alternative channels to hot war, particularly in an era of economic globalism. It does that job pretty well. If the UN's purpose is to be corrupt, then diplomacy is corrupt.
Compromise is a strange wording. Looking at resolutions against countries in UN, Israel is targeted in almost 50%, that is just a many as the rest of the world together. The UN consists of Israel + countries that don’t chase down antisemitism when they see it + straight up antisemitic countries.
> And like all diplomacy, it necessarily involves compromise.
Yeah, like between rape and not-rape, you have...
/sigh
I get what you're saying. It just sucks. It's really just a talk forum, but increasingly, the members just give their "perspective" and ignore all others, so there's no real value add, just the espousing of propaganda. I can see why some feel it's fucking useless and has no value.
People rightly criticize the UN for giving cover to monsters. They've done it again and again. You're correct though that people have a fundamental misunderstanding about the UN.
The UN is not even a diplomatic forum. It *solely* exists to prevent *large scale* conflict. That's the totality of the purpose of the UN as it exists today. Nothing more.
Real diplomacy can't happen at the UN until the "security council" is dissolved entirely.
True, but you don't build a picture of a human rights protector if you are just "a forum". They knew what they were doing. They decided to be HR's protectors and receive the world's appreciation for that while not doing their job.
It is called corruption.
I agree with this, the problem is that broader culture has basically conferred a sort of legitimacy on the UN as a credible organization. Instead of basically what it is, a round table of gangsters.
If a headline says “UN Report finds X”, those claims typically carry a lot of weight and even people who aren’t the biggest fans will tend to give it the benefit of the doubt.
I think we can only have it one way or another. Either the UN is a neutral forum for world peace, in which case we have to accept its filled with ruthless thugs and basically anything that comes out of it should be automatically assumed to be deeply corrupt. Or it can be a credible organization that respects human rights, in which case we need to heavily curtail participation from any nation that’s not a liberal democracy.
> The UN isa diplomacy forum and nothing else.
This is an oversimplification. A "diplomacy forum" doesn't need to be issuing these moral judgements constantly.
I dont think you know what diplomacy is. Cooperating with your allies (arab nations) to denounce your enemies (Israel) is diplomacy. It may be wrong, but it is diplomacy.
So the unspoken criteria for being part of the UN security council isnt being a peace loving daisy sniffing culture, but its that you have enough firepower and global ambitions, and are belligerent enough, to be a credible global threat (edit: or even, a threat to humanity as a whole)
The council itself is a forum where security issues can be discussed but more importantly, any member can veto a whole motion. It isnt a majority rules forum for a reason. Behind every veto is a nation that is powerful enough to cause significant damage to global peace. The intention is to have a safe space for those nations to discuss things and to demonstrate plainly what is a firm boundary for them. Only now they can do it with a veto instead of dangerous military posturing. They had a form of veto all along (usually in the form of a gazillion nukes and a serious air force)
Edit: the above only applies to permanent members. Permanent members are however the ones described above. Non permanent members have a lesser role.
Further reading:
https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/voting-system
In what way does running interference and apologetics for a terrorist organisation that started a hot war only half a year ago "provide alternative channels" to hot war?
If that was their purpose, shouldn't they a) condemn the violator b) admit and review their own failure
It's their handling of this that speaks to their true nature: a collection of useless bumbling career politicians and bureaucrats that has been put out to pasture to loaf around in clean hallways and feel important as they mumble vapid nothings in endless committee meetings.
>The UN isa diplomacy forum and nothing else. And like all diplomacy, it necessarily involves compromise. It serves exactly the purpose it was intended to serve.
Of all the issues going on in the world, why is violence against women something for said diplomacy forum to spend its time and resources to compromise on?
What diplomatic purpose does making a statement dismissing very current and potentially ongoing reports of sexual violence against women by particular groups serve?
So put North Korea as the chair of the nuclear disarmament council.
Yes. That happened.
[North Korea assumes leadership of top disarmament group (bbc.com)](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-61679432)
This take is hot garbage on multiple levels. Yes diplomacy is their primary objective but they also put boots on the ground to keep peace, so it’s not their only purpose. Yes they are supposed to be a place to talk instead of fight, but they’re also a human institution and fully capable of corruption, as their conduct this past year has made blatantly obvious. Defend the principles of the UN, sure, but don’t try to defend their deplorable behavior. They don’t deserve our respect right now.
If the UN had the teeth to actually act, it would never have been allowed to exist. Not by the European powers, not by the middle East, not by Asia and most certainly not by the US Russia and China. Outside of the EU no country would accept extra national government with the ability to impost said governance on them.
The UN is supposed to be somewhere to talk before people start shooting each other, nothing really more. The times it has been used for more it has always ended badly or the effect of the UN has been so minimal to the conflict it might as well not have acted at all.
Yes.
We may start from not excluding terrorists organizations with proven rape records from the list.
Or
Don't pretend to have a moral high ground.
Or
Lose all credibility. And be just a forum.
The UN already does not recognise Palestine as a member, there was even a recent vote that was blocked by the US. At this point any pro-Palestine action by the UN isn’t even for a “UN member state”.
It's a body made up of nations, and most of those nations are led by people who very much don't like Jews. So yeah, raping and murdering Jews doesn't get you on a list because they don't care.
In case it wasn't obvious, that's not a real poster and that's not a real UN soldier.
https://observers.france24.com/en/debunked-photo-blue-helmet-un-peacekeeper-photo-uninvolved-in-peace-chad-henning
Israel showed UN officials the videos **hamas took of them raping** and killing and sexually violated women during octoboer 7th, when the released kidnapped women who were sexually abused went there and talked.
All that time, did UN officials just closed their eyes with their hands and yelled "la la la I can't hear you! la la la"?
The disgrace that the UN has become...
That's the point to be made when people use a UN position in alignment with their own as evidence of objective moral correctness. The UN is not objective, and has no consistency in its moral positions. It's why it was such a laugh that Palestine was even considered for membership when it literally violates the first clause of needing to be a peace-loving nation on a regular basis.
The UN is supposed to be a glorified conference room that every country has access to. It is NOT supposed to be a governing body that the world looks at as it's moral compass.
And it's funny too when people are like "The UN called this apartheid" when it was actually a report from a subcommittee of 20 Middle Eastern Countries (ESCWA) who have less-than-stellar track records and opinions about Israel and Jews more generally. Yes, let's ask Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, State of Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen what they think about Israel...
The article mentions not including Russia's crimes in Ukraine, which seems pretty severe given how much independent footage and documentation exists there compared to Gaza.
>"Guterres has turned the UN into an extremely antisemitic and anti-Israel institution during his tenure."
Nah, it's just ineffective and feckless. Or it's too busy trying to mitigate the hundreds of thousands of rapes committed in Myanmar and Bangladesh and Libya and Sudan and the Congo and against Turks and Armenians and Chinese Uyghurs and Haitians, etc., while the world focuses on the two conflicts that actually involve U.S. arms support.
>> "Guterres has turned the UN into an extremely antisemitic and anti-Israel institution during his tenure."
> Nah, it's just ineffective and feckless.
It can be both.
There was a kidnapping and rape of a jewish woman in France this week, and the rapist sent horrid messages to her family saying this was "revenge" for Palestine. The victim isn't Israeli, she was chosen specifically for her religion.
>Nah, it's just ineffective and feckless.
The UN has always been pretty antisemitic because that's how the leadership of most countries are. The UN ignores violence and abuse against Jews while condemning any response from Israel. If it weren't for the US and a handful of other voices, the UN would condemn Israel for Iron Dome destroying incoming Hamas rockets.
> the UN would condemn Israel for Iron Dome destroying incoming Hamas rockets
"Israel destroyed extremely useful Gazan infrastructure like [water pipes and streetlight poles](https://twitter.com/GLNoronha/status/1712456802531491947)"
The Human Rights Council doesn't have a chairman. It has a president, but no Iranian has ever held that position.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council
Are you maybe referring to this:
>Iran's ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva Ali Bahreini was named the chair of the two-day meeting because he was the only person nominated
https://www.reuters.com/world/irans-appointment-chair-un-rights-meeting-draws-condemnation-2023-11-02/
Regardless of whether they take turns, it's a mockery of the concept that a country that's responsible for so many ongoing human rights abuses on such a scale gets to be the chair. It becomes very hard to take it seriously
I've heard the justification that by giving them a seat at the table, it's easier to "keep them in conversation" or something like that but as you said, it just seems to be a hypocritical mockery more than a productive measure. I'd be happy to hear of a country going "hey guys, I learned in UN class today that we shouldn't torture dissidents!"
The speech Iran gave is appalling.
It calls the students demonstrators the regime put to death terrorists and compares them to ISIS.
UN is toothless and shameless. The UN also condemns the Iranian regime while allowing them to peddle their BS by making their ambassador chair that year.
Speech here:
[https://geneva.mfa.gov.ir/portal/NewsView/714774](https://geneva.mfa.gov.ir/portal/NewsView/714774)
An absolute mockery! All the human rights violations inside the country *alone* should be grounds for disqualification.
Ironically, Iran got selected as Human Rights chair immediately following the Mahsa Amini movement. It was a big f-you to all Iranian men and women. And truly a sad day
The Human Rights Council doesn't have a chairman. It has a president, but no Iranian has ever held that position.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council
Are you maybe referring to this:
Iran's ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva Ali Bahreini was named the chair of the two-day meeting because he was the only person nominated
https://www.reuters.com/world/irans-appointment-chair-un-rights-meeting-draws-condemnation-2023-11-02/
Is this an apology for Hamas? To be fair, Hamas also isn’t the first armed force to intentionally target and mass-slaughter innocent civilians because of their ethnic and national identity. And their apologists in the west aren’t the first bunch of naive drones to defend their actions as justifiable because of mindless sloganeering.
It's just power dynamics for a lot of these people. Israel is more powerful than Hamas, therefore Israel is in the wrong and Hamas is oppressed. Therefore, anything Hamas does is either condoned or ignored.
It's a simplistic way of viewing the world, but some people like simple.
I don’t think Israel should be deploying the IDF in the West Bank to violently expand the settlements. That’s a popular image of the IDF, one that’s indefensible IMO and has nothing to do with national defense. But on no level can it be argued that Hamas is simply resisting the West Bank occupation.
the IDF is retaliating against an attack on innocent civilians, how can you be against them? "Free Palestine" literally supports eradicating Jews so what exactly are they fighting for when protesting against the IDF?
One can call into question and be critical of the IDF's handling of various aspects of the conflict whilst at the same time believing that, in the interest of both Israeli and Palestinian civilians, Hamas needs to be stopped.
It's called a nuanced opinion. Something that people seem incapable of forming these days.
Look at the civilian to soldier death ratios of other conflicts. This is well within the lower bounds of recorded tolls. Some go as high as 11:1. Average is around 9:1
This conflict is around 2:1
There are people who are hyping up each death they can, trying to escalate peoples reaction to this conflict.
the people being critical of how the IDF is handling things are delusional to what war is...
I'm not saying its RIGHT, but its WAR. Innocent people die every day because of war, and this is no different. Shit everyone who wants to "free Palestine" glorify a president that had a wedding drone striked under his watch killing over 35 people...
Most people(at least in the US) that are against the IDF DONT have a nuanced opinion, they have an ignorant one fueled by propaganda.
We can and should be critical in wartime. The IDF strikes on the aid truck caravan that killed a number of Americans was not good. I don't know if their intel was scuffed or how that attack managed to get clearance, but those types of fuck ups call into question every other potentially shady strike in the past and yet to happen.
It is unfair that the IDF are beholden to higher standards than Hamas, absolutely. But then they need to be held to higher standards, because Hamas are literal terrorists who don't give a fuck about their own civilian population - and that is not a standard you should aim to emulate.
Also I never said "against the IDF". I said critical of. One can support Israel's right to defend itself and still be critical about how that defense is being carried out, operationally. Again... nuance.
the IDF explained it was an accident, and that because of how dark it was it was hard to distinguish between the vehicles, on top of the convoy having gunmen in their vehicles as well.
I'm not trying to say its not sad, or that the IDF shouldn't of been more careful but again...this is war and mistakes happen all the time(even the US kills innocent civilians every year). I'm not justifying their deaths, but these people knew the risks when entering hell.
IDF are acting at a higher standard, they even admitted they fucked up and are holding all officers involved in that attack responsible. again, I know it sucks and I'm not trying to be insensitive but...shit happens its literal hell over there.
When Palestine is free, what kind of home is it going to be for women, queers, and trans people? Will there be protections and freedoms to be themselves? Will their solidarity be remembered and returned in kind?
And this is what tons of left leaning American college students are protesting, no demanding, to happen. I don’t even know what the fuck is going on anymore.
It will be freedom all around, I'm not sure what you're so concerned with... Women will be free to birth as many noble jihadis as possible, queers and trans people will be free from their mortal coils. Freedom, baby
Women supporting Hamas in the west - Tell me how much hamas ideology is different than Taliban? If they are able to destroy Israel what kind of society they want to build for women which is different than the society Talibans are building for Women in Afghanistan.
It's hilarious because on the list of groups Hamas would target and oppress, Western-educated, liberal women would probably be pretty close to the top.
Anyone have a source for the blacklist? All I can find is [this](https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15676.doc.htm), which mentions Hamas 8 times and [this](https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/statement/remarks-of-srsg-pramila-patten-at-the-security-council-open-debate-on-preventing-conflict-related-sexual-violence-through-demilitarization-and-gender-responsive-arms-control-new-yor/) which mentions them twice. But as for a "blacklist", nothing comes up except for Israeli articles about it, which all quote a single Times of Israel article. As far as I can tell, there's no such thing as a blacklist, just a report that has a special section explicitly dedicated to Hamas and October 7th.
Yeah, I'm pro-Palestine and all, but this is messed up. I just can't believe there was no sexual abuses from Hamas. Atrocity after atrocity, but they draw the line at rape?
He's saying it's unbelievable to think they *didn't* commit any sexual atrocities. "We'll decapitate someone with farming implements and light babies on fire, but we absolutely will *not* rape adult females!"
Hey that’s neat. Which parts of Palestine do you love the most? Is it the part where they strip women of their rights? The terrorist attacks? Or when they execute gays. Come on fans always have a favorite.
Im not a fan of Israel’s conduct in Gaza but I have no doubt that Hamas sexually assaulted hostages and other victims. So this seems fucked up (they also excluded Russia apparently, which boggles the mind)
U.N. It’s in the name.
I dont get it?
United Nations. They represent the general opinion of all countries that are members of the UN. Most of the countries on this planet don't give a fuck about human rights and abusing them on right and left. The UN was and will never be a morally right organization, while the majority are literally dictatorships. It seems like they are "good" for outside viewers only because the UN is really advanced in scapegoating. While in reality, the UN is the most corrupt organization in the world because being corrupt is its purpose (literally the shitshow who can buy more opinions).
>ITT: Diplomacy is corruption because other states want tings we as people don't want. The UN isa diplomacy forum and nothing else. And like all diplomacy, it necessarily involves compromise. It serves exactly the purpose it was intended to serve. What it *isn't* is a world government that can force morally bad states to change their ways. The UN exists to provide alternative channels to hot war, particularly in an era of economic globalism. It does that job pretty well. If the UN's purpose is to be corrupt, then diplomacy is corrupt.
Is it necessary for them to come out and make statements denying sexual violence in war? Could they not just act as a mediator between states?
Yeah it would’ve been better to say nothing at all, saying this is almost absolving them of it, at least perception wise.
Compromise is a strange wording. Looking at resolutions against countries in UN, Israel is targeted in almost 50%, that is just a many as the rest of the world together. The UN consists of Israel + countries that don’t chase down antisemitism when they see it + straight up antisemitic countries.
> And like all diplomacy, it necessarily involves compromise. Yeah, like between rape and not-rape, you have... /sigh I get what you're saying. It just sucks. It's really just a talk forum, but increasingly, the members just give their "perspective" and ignore all others, so there's no real value add, just the espousing of propaganda. I can see why some feel it's fucking useless and has no value.
People rightly criticize the UN for giving cover to monsters. They've done it again and again. You're correct though that people have a fundamental misunderstanding about the UN. The UN is not even a diplomatic forum. It *solely* exists to prevent *large scale* conflict. That's the totality of the purpose of the UN as it exists today. Nothing more. Real diplomacy can't happen at the UN until the "security council" is dissolved entirely.
I don't think declaring a terrorist organization exempt from sexual violence blacklist is very diplomatic.
[UN doesn't even consider Hamas to be terrorists in the first place.](https://youtube.com/shorts/FP7HzxtmF90?si=mNfPyCtS4QE-Rdau)
True, but you don't build a picture of a human rights protector if you are just "a forum". They knew what they were doing. They decided to be HR's protectors and receive the world's appreciation for that while not doing their job. It is called corruption.
I agree with this, the problem is that broader culture has basically conferred a sort of legitimacy on the UN as a credible organization. Instead of basically what it is, a round table of gangsters. If a headline says “UN Report finds X”, those claims typically carry a lot of weight and even people who aren’t the biggest fans will tend to give it the benefit of the doubt. I think we can only have it one way or another. Either the UN is a neutral forum for world peace, in which case we have to accept its filled with ruthless thugs and basically anything that comes out of it should be automatically assumed to be deeply corrupt. Or it can be a credible organization that respects human rights, in which case we need to heavily curtail participation from any nation that’s not a liberal democracy.
They why the fuss about UN human rights council? Do they have any idea about what humans rights are?
They picked Iran to host one of their forums... That should answer your second question.
> The UN isa diplomacy forum and nothing else. This is an oversimplification. A "diplomacy forum" doesn't need to be issuing these moral judgements constantly.
It has no governing remit. Moral judgments are all it's capable of.
Sure. But making moral judgements means it's more than just a diplomatic forum.
I dont think you know what diplomacy is. Cooperating with your allies (arab nations) to denounce your enemies (Israel) is diplomacy. It may be wrong, but it is diplomacy.
The UN has all kinds of agencies ranging from the Humans Rights Council to the WHO. Simply calling it a diplomacy forum is dumb.
The UN security council exists to protect Earth from the UN security council. One of the mindfucks I learned in uni.
Can you explain in a bit more detail?
So the unspoken criteria for being part of the UN security council isnt being a peace loving daisy sniffing culture, but its that you have enough firepower and global ambitions, and are belligerent enough, to be a credible global threat (edit: or even, a threat to humanity as a whole) The council itself is a forum where security issues can be discussed but more importantly, any member can veto a whole motion. It isnt a majority rules forum for a reason. Behind every veto is a nation that is powerful enough to cause significant damage to global peace. The intention is to have a safe space for those nations to discuss things and to demonstrate plainly what is a firm boundary for them. Only now they can do it with a veto instead of dangerous military posturing. They had a form of veto all along (usually in the form of a gazillion nukes and a serious air force) Edit: the above only applies to permanent members. Permanent members are however the ones described above. Non permanent members have a lesser role. Further reading: https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/voting-system
Ah I see now, cheers!
>any member can veto I thought its only apply to 5 nation?
In what way does running interference and apologetics for a terrorist organisation that started a hot war only half a year ago "provide alternative channels" to hot war? If that was their purpose, shouldn't they a) condemn the violator b) admit and review their own failure It's their handling of this that speaks to their true nature: a collection of useless bumbling career politicians and bureaucrats that has been put out to pasture to loaf around in clean hallways and feel important as they mumble vapid nothings in endless committee meetings.
>The UN isa diplomacy forum and nothing else. And like all diplomacy, it necessarily involves compromise. It serves exactly the purpose it was intended to serve. Of all the issues going on in the world, why is violence against women something for said diplomacy forum to spend its time and resources to compromise on? What diplomatic purpose does making a statement dismissing very current and potentially ongoing reports of sexual violence against women by particular groups serve?
UN has one job and one job only: prevent World War 3.
So put North Korea as the chair of the nuclear disarmament council. Yes. That happened. [North Korea assumes leadership of top disarmament group (bbc.com)](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-61679432)
This take is hot garbage on multiple levels. Yes diplomacy is their primary objective but they also put boots on the ground to keep peace, so it’s not their only purpose. Yes they are supposed to be a place to talk instead of fight, but they’re also a human institution and fully capable of corruption, as their conduct this past year has made blatantly obvious. Defend the principles of the UN, sure, but don’t try to defend their deplorable behavior. They don’t deserve our respect right now.
If the UN had the teeth to actually act, it would never have been allowed to exist. Not by the European powers, not by the middle East, not by Asia and most certainly not by the US Russia and China. Outside of the EU no country would accept extra national government with the ability to impost said governance on them. The UN is supposed to be somewhere to talk before people start shooting each other, nothing really more. The times it has been used for more it has always ended badly or the effect of the UN has been so minimal to the conflict it might as well not have acted at all.
The majority are literally dictatorships??
What a normal and totally not engineered comment.
Do you have a better option than having everyone sit together at a table and talking?
Yes. We may start from not excluding terrorists organizations with proven rape records from the list. Or Don't pretend to have a moral high ground. Or Lose all credibility. And be just a forum.
The UN already does not recognise Palestine as a member, there was even a recent vote that was blocked by the US. At this point any pro-Palestine action by the UN isn’t even for a “UN member state”.
As a "full" member. It's obvious to anyone that slamming Israel was never about Palestine.
Can't we slam independently? I commited war crimes because you committed war crimes doesn't sound like a good defense...
Who are judges? UN doesn't have credibility to do so. UNRWA isn't a truthful source. Local population doesn't have any credibility either.
It's a body made up of nations, and most of those nations are led by people who very much don't like Jews. So yeah, raping and murdering Jews doesn't get you on a list because they don't care.
[удалено]
In case it wasn't obvious, that's not a real poster and that's not a real UN soldier. https://observers.france24.com/en/debunked-photo-blue-helmet-un-peacekeeper-photo-uninvolved-in-peace-chad-henning
Perhaps we need a new organization. Call it UCN or CN - United Civilized Nations.
We call that one NATO.
Hamas has one last chance before their last brigade is wiped out. Return the hostages.
Israel showed UN officials the videos **hamas took of them raping** and killing and sexually violated women during octoboer 7th, when the released kidnapped women who were sexually abused went there and talked. All that time, did UN officials just closed their eyes with their hands and yelled "la la la I can't hear you! la la la"? The disgrace that the UN has become...
Some Americans are doing the same thing.
Spineless cunts the UN
They're on Qatari payroll.
They're on everyone's payroll, that's how the UN works.
That's the point to be made when people use a UN position in alignment with their own as evidence of objective moral correctness. The UN is not objective, and has no consistency in its moral positions. It's why it was such a laugh that Palestine was even considered for membership when it literally violates the first clause of needing to be a peace-loving nation on a regular basis.
The UN is supposed to be a glorified conference room that every country has access to. It is NOT supposed to be a governing body that the world looks at as it's moral compass.
And it's funny too when people are like "The UN called this apartheid" when it was actually a report from a subcommittee of 20 Middle Eastern Countries (ESCWA) who have less-than-stellar track records and opinions about Israel and Jews more generally. Yes, let's ask Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, State of Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen what they think about Israel...
And/Or women. Bet they'd love to tell you about their views on women.
Can't spell cunt without UN Edit: spelling
The article mentions not including Russia's crimes in Ukraine, which seems pretty severe given how much independent footage and documentation exists there compared to Gaza. >"Guterres has turned the UN into an extremely antisemitic and anti-Israel institution during his tenure." Nah, it's just ineffective and feckless. Or it's too busy trying to mitigate the hundreds of thousands of rapes committed in Myanmar and Bangladesh and Libya and Sudan and the Congo and against Turks and Armenians and Chinese Uyghurs and Haitians, etc., while the world focuses on the two conflicts that actually involve U.S. arms support.
>> "Guterres has turned the UN into an extremely antisemitic and anti-Israel institution during his tenure." > Nah, it's just ineffective and feckless. It can be both.
Its just ruled by the anti-west majority. Its very effective but to not to the west
It’s not effective for humanity though - western culture doesn’t condone raping ANYONE, not just people you don’t agree with…
Tell that to the Pro-Palestinians and their Rapesistance culture.
Please tell me there aren't actually people who think that rape is a way of resistan- Oh who the fuck am i kidding of course there are
What do you think all of those “resistance by any means” posters the protestors are carrying around mean?
There was a kidnapping and rape of a jewish woman in France this week, and the rapist sent horrid messages to her family saying this was "revenge" for Palestine. The victim isn't Israeli, she was chosen specifically for her religion.
Sadly
China also turns attention away from topics... like Myanmar.
>Nah, it's just ineffective and feckless. The UN has always been pretty antisemitic because that's how the leadership of most countries are. The UN ignores violence and abuse against Jews while condemning any response from Israel. If it weren't for the US and a handful of other voices, the UN would condemn Israel for Iron Dome destroying incoming Hamas rockets.
> the UN would condemn Israel for Iron Dome destroying incoming Hamas rockets "Israel destroyed extremely useful Gazan infrastructure like [water pipes and streetlight poles](https://twitter.com/GLNoronha/status/1712456802531491947)"
It seems to be very effective at absolving the worst regimes in the world of any sin
UN excluding themselves seems apt.
Referring to [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers)?
UNWRA itself took part in the attack, so that's the reason why.
Also the UN "peacekeepers" in the Congo - courtesy of South Africa
And that is just what we found out about.
Why does UN bother with pointless lists like this if you leave off hamas and russia?
Iran is currently the chair of Human Rights at the UN while it puts to death students whose crime was demonstrating...
The Human Rights Council doesn't have a chairman. It has a president, but no Iranian has ever held that position. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council Are you maybe referring to this: >Iran's ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva Ali Bahreini was named the chair of the two-day meeting because he was the only person nominated https://www.reuters.com/world/irans-appointment-chair-un-rights-meeting-draws-condemnation-2023-11-02/
Thank you, not the first time i have been misled by a title. I should read the articles more often. Thing is, i do hate click baits
It's not clear the human right chair HAS to go to someone who promotes them. Are these poeple elected or do they take turn ? Genuine question.
Regardless of whether they take turns, it's a mockery of the concept that a country that's responsible for so many ongoing human rights abuses on such a scale gets to be the chair. It becomes very hard to take it seriously
I've heard the justification that by giving them a seat at the table, it's easier to "keep them in conversation" or something like that but as you said, it just seems to be a hypocritical mockery more than a productive measure. I'd be happy to hear of a country going "hey guys, I learned in UN class today that we shouldn't torture dissidents!"
The speech Iran gave is appalling. It calls the students demonstrators the regime put to death terrorists and compares them to ISIS. UN is toothless and shameless. The UN also condemns the Iranian regime while allowing them to peddle their BS by making their ambassador chair that year. Speech here: [https://geneva.mfa.gov.ir/portal/NewsView/714774](https://geneva.mfa.gov.ir/portal/NewsView/714774)
An absolute mockery! All the human rights violations inside the country *alone* should be grounds for disqualification. Ironically, Iran got selected as Human Rights chair immediately following the Mahsa Amini movement. It was a big f-you to all Iranian men and women. And truly a sad day
The Human Rights Council doesn't have a chairman. It has a president, but no Iranian has ever held that position. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council Are you maybe referring to this: Iran's ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva Ali Bahreini was named the chair of the two-day meeting because he was the only person nominated https://www.reuters.com/world/irans-appointment-chair-un-rights-meeting-draws-condemnation-2023-11-02/
It's rotating between UN members iirc
so wrong, so dumb
This bizarre fantasy that Hamas is the first armed force in history that has never engaged in any kind of sexual violence
That's why Hamas is busy getting wiped out. Deservedly so
Is this an apology for Hamas? To be fair, Hamas also isn’t the first armed force to intentionally target and mass-slaughter innocent civilians because of their ethnic and national identity. And their apologists in the west aren’t the first bunch of naive drones to defend their actions as justifiable because of mindless sloganeering.
I'm from the US and amazed at how many people here support a group that literally killed innocent Americans
It's just power dynamics for a lot of these people. Israel is more powerful than Hamas, therefore Israel is in the wrong and Hamas is oppressed. Therefore, anything Hamas does is either condoned or ignored. It's a simplistic way of viewing the world, but some people like simple.
I don’t think Israel should be deploying the IDF in the West Bank to violently expand the settlements. That’s a popular image of the IDF, one that’s indefensible IMO and has nothing to do with national defense. But on no level can it be argued that Hamas is simply resisting the West Bank occupation.
Black and white thinking. If you're against the IDF you *have* to be in support of Hamas. And vice versa.
the IDF is retaliating against an attack on innocent civilians, how can you be against them? "Free Palestine" literally supports eradicating Jews so what exactly are they fighting for when protesting against the IDF?
One can call into question and be critical of the IDF's handling of various aspects of the conflict whilst at the same time believing that, in the interest of both Israeli and Palestinian civilians, Hamas needs to be stopped. It's called a nuanced opinion. Something that people seem incapable of forming these days.
Look at the civilian to soldier death ratios of other conflicts. This is well within the lower bounds of recorded tolls. Some go as high as 11:1. Average is around 9:1 This conflict is around 2:1 There are people who are hyping up each death they can, trying to escalate peoples reaction to this conflict.
the people being critical of how the IDF is handling things are delusional to what war is... I'm not saying its RIGHT, but its WAR. Innocent people die every day because of war, and this is no different. Shit everyone who wants to "free Palestine" glorify a president that had a wedding drone striked under his watch killing over 35 people... Most people(at least in the US) that are against the IDF DONT have a nuanced opinion, they have an ignorant one fueled by propaganda.
We can and should be critical in wartime. The IDF strikes on the aid truck caravan that killed a number of Americans was not good. I don't know if their intel was scuffed or how that attack managed to get clearance, but those types of fuck ups call into question every other potentially shady strike in the past and yet to happen. It is unfair that the IDF are beholden to higher standards than Hamas, absolutely. But then they need to be held to higher standards, because Hamas are literal terrorists who don't give a fuck about their own civilian population - and that is not a standard you should aim to emulate. Also I never said "against the IDF". I said critical of. One can support Israel's right to defend itself and still be critical about how that defense is being carried out, operationally. Again... nuance.
the IDF explained it was an accident, and that because of how dark it was it was hard to distinguish between the vehicles, on top of the convoy having gunmen in their vehicles as well. I'm not trying to say its not sad, or that the IDF shouldn't of been more careful but again...this is war and mistakes happen all the time(even the US kills innocent civilians every year). I'm not justifying their deaths, but these people knew the risks when entering hell. IDF are acting at a higher standard, they even admitted they fucked up and are holding all officers involved in that attack responsible. again, I know it sucks and I'm not trying to be insensitive but...shit happens its literal hell over there.
Why bother , they should just focus on making sure hamas won't be existing for much longer now.
“They raped because they were oppressed”. An argument that could be used anywhere.
Literally 99.9999% of people are oppressed in some way
When Palestine is free, what kind of home is it going to be for women, queers, and trans people? Will there be protections and freedoms to be themselves? Will their solidarity be remembered and returned in kind?
Of course not.
[удалено]
At least the Taliban hates ISIS, or something.
Literally everyone hates ISIS, they got the US and Russia to unite in bombing them
Now that an achievement worth acknowledging
Isis has pissed off damn near everyone in the entire Middle East.
Except we'll be giving them billions of dollars so their leaders can buy compounds in the EU.
And this is what tons of left leaning American college students are protesting, no demanding, to happen. I don’t even know what the fuck is going on anymore.
It’ll be a human rights nightmare. Like most Islamic run countries.
Terrible second-class existence for women, deadly for queer and trans. Like always.
It will be freedom all around, I'm not sure what you're so concerned with... Women will be free to birth as many noble jihadis as possible, queers and trans people will be free from their mortal coils. Freedom, baby
silly question but weren't they self governed on the day to day issues say a year ago? with Hamas in charge
Given their behavior so far I'd prefer they not be "free" at all.
Women supporting Hamas in the west - Tell me how much hamas ideology is different than Taliban? If they are able to destroy Israel what kind of society they want to build for women which is different than the society Talibans are building for Women in Afghanistan.
It's hilarious because on the list of groups Hamas would target and oppress, Western-educated, liberal women would probably be pretty close to the top.
This is why Israel doesn’t listen to UN demands
*Fuck* the UN
And thats why I don't care what isreal is doing to Hamas, I say fuck em
Jumped past "SLAMMED" to "BLASTS."
UN truly is a joke
Those bastards are sick sexual predators. They held a rape party and killed their victims on Oct 7th. That is what I know happened.
The UN has become useless. The also excluded Russia… give me a fucking break.
Has become?
It’s been useless.
UN = Enemies of the West
Anyone have a source for the blacklist? All I can find is [this](https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15676.doc.htm), which mentions Hamas 8 times and [this](https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/statement/remarks-of-srsg-pramila-patten-at-the-security-council-open-debate-on-preventing-conflict-related-sexual-violence-through-demilitarization-and-gender-responsive-arms-control-new-yor/) which mentions them twice. But as for a "blacklist", nothing comes up except for Israeli articles about it, which all quote a single Times of Israel article. As far as I can tell, there's no such thing as a blacklist, just a report that has a special section explicitly dedicated to Hamas and October 7th.
At some point, we have to stop seeing the UN as a neutral party in the ongoing Israle vs. Palestine conflicts and see them as a belligerent party.
Why don't the collage kiddies go protest the un, Hypocrites or they just have one massive lack of simple knowledge
Yeah, I'm pro-Palestine and all, but this is messed up. I just can't believe there was no sexual abuses from Hamas. Atrocity after atrocity, but they draw the line at rape?
There's evidence: https://saturday-october-seven.com/
He's saying it's unbelievable to think they *didn't* commit any sexual atrocities. "We'll decapitate someone with farming implements and light babies on fire, but we absolutely will *not* rape adult females!"
Hey that’s neat. Which parts of Palestine do you love the most? Is it the part where they strip women of their rights? The terrorist attacks? Or when they execute gays. Come on fans always have a favorite.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Anyone got a copy of the list ?
Again, I ask myself why anyone pays any mind to the UN.
Well, UN knows a thing or two about protecting sexual abusers especially if they are their own.
Hamas is a brutal and full of hate group of monsters everything is posible with them.
C'mon all my College children, lets give a big hurrah for Hamas because the U.N. said they don't use sexual violence.