I feel like I need way more context on the inner workings of the UN to be able to know whether this is a good, bad, or in the middle type of thing. Does anyone know what the likely outcome will be...
I feel like I need way more context on the inner workings of the UN to be able to know whether this is a good, bad, or in the middle type of thing. Does anyone know what the likely outcome will be from this?
Well I know a lot of the issues the U.S. has with the U.N. stem from it's recent change on Israel. Israel has been seriously pushing it's luck with setting up camps in Palestinian territory and...
Well I know a lot of the issues the U.S. has with the U.N. stem from it's recent change on Israel. Israel has been seriously pushing it's luck with setting up camps in Palestinian territory and stoking conflict. The U.N., specifically the Human Rights Council, has been increasingly calling for, and voting on action against Israel's behavior. The United States, namely, Nicki Haley and friends, are essentially participating in whataboutism and saying that the council needs to focus on other human rights abuses and that they have an unfair/biased view of Israel
Well I'd imagine their seat on the General Assembly (which appoints the Human Rights Council) and unilateral veto ability of Security Council members has them feeling absolutely secure in any...
Well I'd imagine their seat on the General Assembly (which appoints the Human Rights Council) and unilateral veto ability of Security Council members has them feeling absolutely secure in any scrutinization of themselves. Just take a look at the history of the U.S. using it's veto power to stop resolutions addressing human rights violations when politically convenient. That veto ability is separate from, and completely supersedes any authority of the Human Rights Council.
It's worth noting that the U.S. does have a point that there are countries with significant human rights abuses in the leadership of the Human Rights Council, namely Saudi Arabia.
Isn't Saudi Arabia ostensibly an ally of the U.S.? Why would the U.S. be complaining about their placement on the council (not that they shouldn't)? Is this disengagement really to 'protect'...
Isn't Saudi Arabia ostensibly an ally of the U.S.? Why would the U.S. be complaining about their placement on the council (not that they shouldn't)?
Is this disengagement really to 'protect' Israel or is the U.S. using it as an excuse to de-legitimise the Human Rights Council and, in turn, other things the UN does?
Yes. The single largest conflict by far that the U.S. has with the UN is the UN's criticizims of Israel and the U.S.' s blind defense/veto and arms funding of Israel in turn. Edit: Sorry I sort of...
Yes. The single largest conflict by far that the U.S. has with the UN is the UN's criticizims of Israel and the U.S.' s blind defense/veto and arms funding of Israel in turn.
Edit: Sorry I sort of misread your question. But I think the answer truly is "both"
I remember reading an opinion piece a few years ago which tried to explain that part of the USA's support of Israel was based in religion. The argument went thus: according to the Bible, the final...
I remember reading an opinion piece a few years ago which tried to explain that part of the USA's support of Israel was based in religion. The argument went thus: according to the Bible, the final battle (Armageddon) will be fought in the Holy Land, and it's necessary for God's chosen people to be in the Holy Land when that happens. Therefore, the Jewish people need to be in Israel, and Israel is entitled to do whatever it wants because it is the home of the Jews in the Holy Land.
This wasn't to say that every single U.S. President and Secretary of State and so on were fundamentalist Christians. It was just an additional thread to help explain the USA's ongoing support of Israel.
There's also the fact that Israel is the USA's only non-Muslim ally in the Middle East. Being non-Muslim is very important to Americans these days.
That is believable, and I do think that it's a win-win for the U.S. In their view, if the apocalypse happens, it's a win, if Israel continues to be a bulwark of American-style democracy in the...
The argument went thus: according to the Bible, the final battle (Armageddon) will be fought in the Holy Land, and it's necessary for God's chosen people to be in the Holy Land when that happens. Therefore, the Jewish people need to be in Israel, and Israel is entitled to do whatever it wants because it is the home of the Jews in the Holy Land.
That is believable, and I do think that it's a win-win for the U.S. In their view, if the apocalypse happens, it's a win, if Israel continues to be a bulwark of American-style democracy in the region, it's also a win.
It's just, I don't know, disappointing, but not unforeseeable.
There's also the fact that Israel is the USA's only non-Muslim ally in the Middle East. Being non-Muslim is very important to Americans these days.
One thing I'm not quite sure I'll understand is why the U.S. would actively sow chaos in the region, then have the gall to claim We did nothing wrong when the locals have finally had enough. Maybe it was all a push by the military-industrial complex to sell more weapons. That seems to be a pretty big deal in the U.S., anyway.
To me, I guess it just feels like the U.S. is becoming (if it wasn't already) a bully.
Is that how they want to be seen?
That's a pretty huge question that I'm probably not qualified to answer lol. I'd imagine the answer involves decades of foreign policy and world events. But in the context of today, Israel...
That's a pretty huge question that I'm probably not qualified to answer lol. I'd imagine the answer involves decades of foreign policy and world events. But in the context of today, Israel definitely represents a strong Western influence in a very tumultuous part of the world. Israel is (in the eyes of the US government) an extremely valuable ally, and there is no debating that we've let highly concerning and questionable acts from Israel go unaddressed.
Jewish lobby in the US is HUGE with a capital $ Having the only stable country in the region be an ally effectively means you own that region Preventing foreign powers from being able to leverage...
Jewish lobby in the US is HUGE with a capital $
Having the only stable country in the region be an ally effectively means you own that region
Preventing foreign powers from being able to leverage control of the Suez Canal is probably more important than the oil thing - after the first war over it in the 50s Israel flipped from strained UK support to heavy US support.
@JamesTeaKirk has a pretty good answre, but the UN has been pretty pissed about US's human rights abuses (a quick search turned up this three year old article); these are issues about how they...
@JamesTeaKirk has a pretty good answre, but the UN has been pretty pissed about US's human rights abuses (a quick search turned up this three year old article); these are issues about how they handle immigration, death penalty, and torture, for example.
Since that is the case, what would any repercussions be for the U.S. if they try to de-legitimise the UN or if they just refuse to participate in everything, save for the Security Council?
Since that is the case, what would any repercussions be for the U.S. if they try to de-legitimise the UN or if they just refuse to participate in everything, save for the Security Council?
Would you deny that the HRC has a preoccupation with Israel over other countries? They've condemned Israel more times than every other country combined. I'm not sure anyone would say that's...
Would you deny that the HRC has a preoccupation with Israel over other countries? They've condemned Israel more times than every other country combined. I'm not sure anyone would say that's representative.
I agree with Ban Ki-moon who said in a 2007 statement:
The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world.
I think the US is incredibly stupid for leaving but I don't think the HRC is very good at its job either.
I would say the U.S.'s refusal to address the issue and blind vetoing warrants the dedicated agenda item. And I'd say the U.N. as whole is bad at actually getting anything done
I would say the U.S.'s refusal to address the issue and blind vetoing warrants the dedicated agenda item. And I'd say the U.N. as whole is bad at actually getting anything done
Communication is sort of the paramount of the U.N. There's a focus on getting countries to the table, even if that means giving them some space while the discussions are had. There's also the idea...
Communication is sort of the paramount of the U.N. There's a focus on getting countries to the table, even if that means giving them some space while the discussions are had. There's also the idea of "Well if you're going to do this atrocious thing, will you at least let us come document it if we promise not to get in the way?"
I guess documentation would be good from a historical perspective, but what do you think would happen if the UN didn't care do much for national sovereignty?
I guess documentation would be good from a historical perspective, but what do you think would happen if the UN didn't care do much for national sovereignty?
In addition to concerns about agenda items singling out Israel, the US also wanted more stringent criteria for membership and the ability to kick countries that have egregious human rights records off the council.
I don't understand why Israel is so vehemently defended. They are a strategic ally in a region which is usually distrusting if not outright hostile towards the US and other western countries, but...
I don't understand why Israel is so vehemently defended. They are a strategic ally in a region which is usually distrusting if not outright hostile towards the US and other western countries, but previous administrations didn't blindly cover for them this much.
US also wanted more stringent criteria for membership
This I could get behind, even though it means the US should probably be kicked off the council.
Look at who's supporting them. There are more evangelical Christians in support of Israel than there are Jewish people in existence. They like similarly minded white people in the middle of a...
Look at who's supporting them. There are more evangelical Christians in support of Israel than there are Jewish people in existence. They like similarly minded white people in the middle of a region of differently-minded brown people (Insultingly oversimplifying decades of political turmoil and events, but nevertheless)
For sure, the Christian support is really only relevant as an explanation of the huge American base of voters willing to blindly support Israel. The government side is certainly much more political
For sure, the Christian support is really only relevant as an explanation of the huge American base of voters willing to blindly support Israel. The government side is certainly much more political
I don't understand why Palestine is so vehemently defended. They blindly shoot rockets with the intent to kill civilians on a regular basis. They have a "martyr's fund" that rewards suicide...
I don't understand why Israel is so vehemently defended.
I don't understand why Palestine is so vehemently defended.
They blindly shoot rockets with the intent to kill civilians on a regular basis. They have a "martyr's fund" that rewards suicide bomber's families. Their "government" pledges to destroy Israel.
I never said that Palestine was much better; just because they're the ones getting crushed doesn't justify their tactics. But the US (or rather, the Trump administration) seems to be trying to...
I never said that Palestine was much better; just because they're the ones getting crushed doesn't justify their tactics. But the US (or rather, the Trump administration) seems to be trying to shield Israel from criticism, more so than previous administrations, which is disappointing since enabling further expansion of/aggression by Israel will only worsen the conflict (and provide recruitment material for terrorist groups).
Perhaps these people who are deflecting any criticism of Israel want the conflict to worsen, so they can justify escalation of anti-terrorism and anti-immigration polices. Effectively they would...
which is disappointing since enabling further expansion of/aggression by Israel will only worsen the conflict (and provide recruitment material for terrorist groups)
Perhaps these people who are deflecting any criticism of Israel want the conflict to worsen, so they can justify escalation of anti-terrorism and anti-immigration polices. Effectively they would have something to point to and say "Hey, look over there, those brown people are doing bad things in Israel, we can't let them do bad things in the U.S."
There are plenty of reports on Israel's military using similar, if not worse tactics. Israel is getting billions of dollars of military funding from the U.S., they're not using it for nothing and...
There are plenty of reports on Israel's military using similar, if not worse tactics. Israel is getting billions of dollars of military funding from the U.S., they're not using it for nothing and you'd be hard pressed to argue that it's 100% self defense.
I feel like I need way more context on the inner workings of the UN to be able to know whether this is a good, bad, or in the middle type of thing. Does anyone know what the likely outcome will be from this?
Well I know a lot of the issues the U.S. has with the U.N. stem from it's recent change on Israel. Israel has been seriously pushing it's luck with setting up camps in Palestinian territory and stoking conflict. The U.N., specifically the Human Rights Council, has been increasingly calling for, and voting on action against Israel's behavior. The United States, namely, Nicki Haley and friends, are essentially participating in whataboutism and saying that the council needs to focus on other human rights abuses and that they have an unfair/biased view of Israel
Wouldn't that lead to the UN looking more closely at the US's human rights abuses?
Or do the US consider themselves immune from closer inspection?
Well I'd imagine their seat on the General Assembly (which appoints the Human Rights Council) and unilateral veto ability of Security Council members has them feeling absolutely secure in any scrutinization of themselves. Just take a look at the history of the U.S. using it's veto power to stop resolutions addressing human rights violations when politically convenient. That veto ability is separate from, and completely supersedes any authority of the Human Rights Council.
It's worth noting that the U.S. does have a point that there are countries with significant human rights abuses in the leadership of the Human Rights Council, namely Saudi Arabia.
Isn't Saudi Arabia ostensibly an ally of the U.S.? Why would the U.S. be complaining about their placement on the council (not that they shouldn't)?
Is this disengagement really to 'protect' Israel or is the U.S. using it as an excuse to de-legitimise the Human Rights Council and, in turn, other things the UN does?
Yes. The single largest conflict by far that the U.S. has with the UN is the UN's criticizims of Israel and the U.S.' s blind defense/veto and arms funding of Israel in turn.
Edit: Sorry I sort of misread your question. But I think the answer truly is "both"
So, why does the U.S. find itself fully justified in defying, what amounts to, the rest of the world?
I remember reading an opinion piece a few years ago which tried to explain that part of the USA's support of Israel was based in religion. The argument went thus: according to the Bible, the final battle (Armageddon) will be fought in the Holy Land, and it's necessary for God's chosen people to be in the Holy Land when that happens. Therefore, the Jewish people need to be in Israel, and Israel is entitled to do whatever it wants because it is the home of the Jews in the Holy Land.
This wasn't to say that every single U.S. President and Secretary of State and so on were fundamentalist Christians. It was just an additional thread to help explain the USA's ongoing support of Israel.
There's also the fact that Israel is the USA's only non-Muslim ally in the Middle East. Being non-Muslim is very important to Americans these days.
That is believable, and I do think that it's a win-win for the U.S. In their view, if the apocalypse happens, it's a win, if Israel continues to be a bulwark of American-style democracy in the region, it's also a win.
It's just, I don't know, disappointing, but not unforeseeable.
One thing I'm not quite sure I'll understand is why the U.S. would actively sow chaos in the region, then have the gall to claim We did nothing wrong when the locals have finally had enough. Maybe it was all a push by the military-industrial complex to sell more weapons. That seems to be a pretty big deal in the U.S., anyway.
To me, I guess it just feels like the U.S. is becoming (if it wasn't already) a bully.
Is that how they want to be seen?
That's a pretty huge question that I'm probably not qualified to answer lol. I'd imagine the answer involves decades of foreign policy and world events. But in the context of today, Israel definitely represents a strong Western influence in a very tumultuous part of the world. Israel is (in the eyes of the US government) an extremely valuable ally, and there is no debating that we've let highly concerning and questionable acts from Israel go unaddressed.
Jewish lobby in the US is HUGE with a capital $
Having the only stable country in the region be an ally effectively means you own that region
Preventing foreign powers from being able to leverage control of the Suez Canal is probably more important than the oil thing - after the first war over it in the 50s Israel flipped from strained UK support to heavy US support.
The oil thing is probably still relevant though
@JamesTeaKirk has a pretty good answre, but the UN has been pretty pissed about US's human rights abuses (a quick search turned up this three year old article); these are issues about how they handle immigration, death penalty, and torture, for example.
Since that is the case, what would any repercussions be for the U.S. if they try to de-legitimise the UN or if they just refuse to participate in everything, save for the Security Council?
Very good question but I have no idea. I just happen to follow the news quite well, so I remembered the UN/US human rights issues from a while ago.
Would you deny that the HRC has a preoccupation with Israel over other countries? They've condemned Israel more times than every other country combined. I'm not sure anyone would say that's representative.
I agree with Ban Ki-moon who said in a 2007 statement:
I think the US is incredibly stupid for leaving but I don't think the HRC is very good at its job either.
I would say the U.S.'s refusal to address the issue and blind vetoing warrants the dedicated agenda item. And I'd say the U.N. as whole is bad at actually getting anything done
True, on the other hand, the UNs lack of power is what makes it what it is. If it intervened more I think it would have a lot less support.
That's a good and oft ignored point
If the U.N. doesn't intervene where it can, what is the point of having it?
Communication is sort of the paramount of the U.N. There's a focus on getting countries to the table, even if that means giving them some space while the discussions are had. There's also the idea of "Well if you're going to do this atrocious thing, will you at least let us come document it if we promise not to get in the way?"
I guess documentation would be good from a historical perspective, but what do you think would happen if the UN didn't care do much for national sovereignty?
I don't understand why Israel is so vehemently defended. They are a strategic ally in a region which is usually distrusting if not outright hostile towards the US and other western countries, but previous administrations didn't blindly cover for them this much.
This I could get behind, even though it means the US should probably be kicked off the council.
Look at who's supporting them. There are more evangelical Christians in support of Israel than there are Jewish people in existence. They like similarly minded white people in the middle of a region of differently-minded brown people (Insultingly oversimplifying decades of political turmoil and events, but nevertheless)
Isn't there also a strategic element to it, as Isreal is currently one of the stronger US allies in the region?
For sure, the Christian support is really only relevant as an explanation of the huge American base of voters willing to blindly support Israel. The government side is certainly much more political
I don't understand why Palestine is so vehemently defended.
They blindly shoot rockets with the intent to kill civilians on a regular basis. They have a "martyr's fund" that rewards suicide bomber's families. Their "government" pledges to destroy Israel.
I never said that Palestine was much better; just because they're the ones getting crushed doesn't justify their tactics. But the US (or rather, the Trump administration) seems to be trying to shield Israel from criticism, more so than previous administrations, which is disappointing since enabling further expansion of/aggression by Israel will only worsen the conflict (and provide recruitment material for terrorist groups).
Perhaps these people who are deflecting any criticism of Israel want the conflict to worsen, so they can justify escalation of anti-terrorism and anti-immigration polices. Effectively they would have something to point to and say "Hey, look over there, those brown people are doing bad things in Israel, we can't let them do bad things in the U.S."
There are plenty of reports on Israel's military using similar, if not worse tactics. Israel is getting billions of dollars of military funding from the U.S., they're not using it for nothing and you'd be hard pressed to argue that it's 100% self defense.
Here's an article on one of the reports
I feel like you answered your own question: