party with sufficient power to stop any country’s bullshit through
No. That would not be a solution for anything! That would just be an even bigger threat to humanity.
Comment on So is Israel just going to finish Palestine off?
yggstyle@lemmy.world 5 months ago
This may not be a popular response but when did the nazi regime stop? When did China stop with it’s cleansing? America and manifest destiny? I could go on… Humanity needs to realize that we are pretty shitty in general and can’t be trusted when it comes to hatred, entitlement, and tribalism.
The solution is a neutral third party with sufficient power to stop any country’s bullshit through economic and military (actual) peacekeeping… which doesn’t exist nor will it ever.
So the short answer is they will stop when the cleansing is complete.
After the deed is done we as ‘civilized’ nations will lament the tragedy and promise change… until the media cycle washes all those sins down the drain and it will be forgotten until next time.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 5 months ago
yggstyle@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I disagree. It’s about execution - creating an environment that is resistant to corrosion. A standing force can absolutely be viewed in that manner - which is why it cannot be a single static standing force.
The UN is the right idea but it needs teeth. And it needs the teeth to be double sided. If boots are on the ground peacekeeping they should be without bias and secondary interest. An attack on a peacekeeper has no guarantee of the creed nor country of origin of that keeper.
Peacekeeping should be like a draft. Every country that participates must provide and maintain a set number of rolling participants. These people will serve and train initially in humanitarian deployments with others… half way through their ‘term’ they should be moved to peacekeeping duties. This is idealized but would be good for both building trust amongst peacekeepers and goodwill towards them. This solves the military portion (roughly) - I have a lot of thoughts on this and believe it to be solvable… it just won’t be. No country gets to benefit therefore it has no merit.
That covered the military side… when talking about the economic side: the peacekeepers (let’s say un for simplicity) carry the ability to (by vote) censure a country and cut it off from direct trade / support. At that time any trade is then routed through the UN and it becomes the middleman. This allows economic pressures to be precisely controlled on an area. Once that country falls in line, by majority vote, operations are restored. Once again this is idealized and has no obviously advantaged party … so it has no merit and will never occur.
Basically everyone is equally held accountable and equally invested. Of course this means everyone gets a seat at the table and everyone gets one vote. I’m certain we can already see why this has 0 chance of ever happening. Those in power seek to keep it - very few will willingly give some away.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 5 months ago
A nice dream, but only a dream.
Unfortunately man is not perfect enough for it to work.
yggstyle@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I said as much multiple times.
The point of that statement was to highlight that it is possible to construct something that does not allow for consolidation and corruption of power… which it did. Your view, simply was looking at present day examples which as you correctly identified do not work. That doesn’t mean nothing can work however … which is why I disagreed.
It’s a fun mental exercise to what if and try to construct something that could work. Can’t tear something down without considering what rebuilding it would look like.
ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 5 months ago
be careful about using the term ‘execution’ here ;-)
yggstyle@lemmy.world 5 months ago
…until morale improves? Dually noted lol.
YourPrivatHater@ani.social 5 months ago
This is the most reasonable approach, but as seen with the UN, wich as the sum of its parts failed to keep dictatorships out wich now basically control everything but the security Council and the ICJ, its a Utopist approach sadly. There cant be a peace unless Israel takes over Palestine and treats the people that live there now as equal (wich they do already btw, the myth about apartheid is BS there are many Arab Palestinians living in Israel and many went to work in Israel from gaza) but the problem with the surrounding terrorists is another problem.
Carrolade@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The claim of Israeli apartheid does not pertain to the status of Israeli Arabs fyi. It pertains to de facto Israeli control of Gaza and the West Bank, where any time they want the IDF can exercise as much control as they want, by virtue of superior firepower.
Hamas, for instance, only persisted because the Israelis allowed it. Israel controlled the majority of access to the regions, and could and did unilaterally police them with military force at will.
YourPrivatHater@ani.social 5 months ago
Yeah shure because Hamas isnt constantly firing rockets into Israel… If there is a defakto control how exactly would the 7th October have happened…
This is just idiotic.
Carrolade@lemmy.world 5 months ago
De facto control does not mean 100% control over every event that happens. People are still humans, and capable of making errors. It is not mind reading/mind control powers, those are still impossible.
Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The Apartheid is very much real, and, while to a much lesser extent than the Palestinian Occupied Territories, also applies to the Palestinian Citizens of Israel
Socio-economic gaps between Palestinian and Jewish Israeli citizens are the result of discriminatory policies pursued over decades. Historically, Israel prevented its Palestinian citizens from accessing livelihoods under its 18-year-long military rule, and used them, at different times, as a source of cheap labour in order to preserve the interests of the Jewish majority. In addition to cruel land seizures, other discriminatory policies have led to Palestinians’ social and economic deprivation: the exclusion of Palestinian localities from high priority areas for development, the discriminatory allocation of land and water for agriculture as well as discriminatory planning and zoning, and the failure to implement major infrastructure development projects in Palestinian communities.
The blockade and Israel’s repeated military offensives have had a heavy toll on Gaza’s essential infrastructure and further debilitated its health system and economy, leaving the area in a state of perpetual humanitarian crisis. Indeed, Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population, the majority of whom are children, has created conditions inimical to human life due to shortages of housing, potable water and electricity, and lack of access to essential medicines and medical care, food, educational equipment and building materials.
- Amnesty International Report pg 26-27
Other reports about how Israel is an Apartheid State:
B’TSelem Report with quick Explainer
YourPrivatHater@ani.social 5 months ago
…wikipedia.org/…/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch
…wikipedia.org/…/Criticism_of_Amnesty_Internation…
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B'Tselem
I think you might need to read this i won’t read your comment or open those links, your sources are very openly and clearly biased and known to be very antisemitic and to hate Israel. There is nothing to gain from them.
Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Criticism of the Human Rights Abuses of the Israeli State and Anti-zionism are not antisemitism. You are choosing to be willfully ignorant. Israel does NOT represent all Jewish people, nor does their actions. There have been prominent Jewish people extremely critical of Zionism since it’s inception, are you seriously saying they are antisemitic too?
Israel is the one that intentionally conflates the two in order to deflect from criticizm. When Israel commits war crimes, or human rights abuses, or land grabbing, they are the ones that claim they do so for all Jewish people. When Zionist actions are criticized, they call it antisemitic. The conflation of the two is genuinely antisemitic, as the actions of Israel in no way represent all Jewish people.
If you don’t want to be naive, I suggest you read the reports by human rights organizations. They are not antisemitic, unless you think advocates for a Secular Bi-National State with equal rights for both Israelis and Palestinians is also antisemitic, which is insane.
Year before Oct 7 - Jewish Voice for Peace
2023 is ‘deadliest year’ for Palestinian children say human rights groups (Oct 6th)
HRW Events of 2022 and HRW Events of 2023
Reports about how Israel is an Apartheid State:
B’TSelem Report with quick Explainer
Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 5 months ago
UN, which… failed to keep dictatorships out
The UN while created with noble intentions certainly fell for the paradox of tolerance. They tolerate the dictatorships and human rights abusers because if they didn’t they’d be much less empowered to take action against them, or worse they’d form their own competing UN made up of nations motivated to join them and you’d just end up with another NATO and Warsaw Pact for example. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Ultimately the challenge comes down to how do you ultimately tame the leaders of the world who have absolute power. The founding fathers of America thought they had the solution with democracy and the many checks and balances they implemented into this new form of government they setup, but even that has its challenges and failures that they never could have forseen. The UN was the next experiment, trying to take the similar principles onto the world stage, and it’s been less successful (but at least has had some successes)
YourPrivatHater@ani.social 5 months ago
The UN while created with noble intentions certainly fell for the paradox of tolerance. They tolerate the dictatorships and human rights abusers because if they didn’t they’d be much less empowered to take action against them, or worse they’d form their own competing UN made up of nations motivated to join them and you’d just end up with another NATO and Warsaw Pact for example. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Yes absolutely but the dictatorships and shitshow countries (china for example) keep growing in numbers, if this trend isn’t reversed fast, UN fails as a whole and there is no saving.
It would be better in my opinion to have two options, democratic union and whatever the dictatorships do with each other, because the only thing that united them is being against democracy and Israel. UN, in my personal opinion, already failed as a whole and is beyond saving.
Ultimately the challenge comes down to how do you ultimately tame the leaders of the world who have absolute power. The founding fathers of the United States of America thought they had the solution with democracy and the many checks and balances they implemented into this new form of government they setup, but even that has its challenges and failures that they never could have forseen.
The big part of a government is, that it has power to enforce whatever it decides, UN gladly does not have any meaningful power, Israel would be gone by now otherwise.
The UN was the next experiment, trying to take the similar principles onto the world stage, and it’s been less successful (but at least has had some successes)
Well those successes slowly but steadily crumble away, the most institutions have failed, WHO is doing its job only half assed (especially the making shure hospital aren’t used as military bases) the human rights Council is majorly filled with people that think human rights are shit and only need to apply it when it fits against the west or Israel specifically, the General Assembly is almost the same. (fun fact, the day of the Russian attack on Ukraine the general assembly voted about condemning Israel for something… Again. Most resolutions are against Israel.) Oh and the entire UNHWR wich is definitely more than partially responsible for hamas doing what they do.
UN isn’t even a diplomatic forum anymore.
SurpriZe@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Options for this third party?
Surp@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I am in no way saying what’s going on is right…anytime massive amounts of life is taken it’s horrible. With that being said you realize that there isn’t a single country in the entire world that wasn’t built on the blood of others? Every civilization that’s here now destroyed some other one. People act like they live in some place that asked nicely to have the land they have.
yggstyle@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Oh, I’m fully aware. Tribalism is the lizard brain going deeeep in the paint. The problem is this: peaceful culture doesn’t fight back - aggressive culture exploits this: which one thrives? We have systematically bred for and codified our warlike nature. This is the result. Is it fixable? Many have tried. Our history books are littered with both failed attempts and their distorted remains. All I can say for certain is that the way the majority of countries are structured… isn’t it. This is fundamentally why achieving a fix is nearly impossible at scale: tribalism. Even if we are wrong it’s our wrong and we don’t want to lose it. This is rooted in fear of change which from a survival aspect makes sense… but becomes detrimental at scale.
Surp@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I agree with what you’re saying and it’s too bad most people are too stupid to move forward with that mindset because I for one would rather we could all get along but for invisible reasons many people can’t…which is in itself quite unintelligent
thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 5 months ago
No. Moral. States