Maybe to spark curious conversation, when a world power seems to be supportive of actions that an international body considers negative, what structure can help resolve these? It does seem like UN is unable to really make a dent here.
The only thing saving Israel is the US protection and the nukes. US protection can change. Nukes are harder.
South Africa successfully utilized "strategic ambiguity". They never explicitly acknowledged they had the weapons, while making sure world leaders knew they were a credible threat.
during South Africa's border wars (specifically against the Cubans in Angola), there were internal discussions about deploying tactical nuclear weapons. Because world leaders viewed that threat as entirely credible, it gave South Africa massive leverage.
Feels like world leaders view modern Israeli threats through the exact same lens and i'd agree given recent covert operations like the beeper bombings hence this UN posture.
Could we replicate the SA situation? probably not but maybe partially?
When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended, South Africa’s strategic leverage evaporated overnight. The US and UK no longer had a reason to shield them from crippling global economic sanctions.
Feels like we are watching this in real time with Israel post Iran war. If the US entirely removed its diplomatic shield and allowed full global economic isolation to set in, the economic cost of maintaining a pariah state might eventually outweigh the perceived security benefit of the weapons. ('might' doing a lot of heavy lifting there)
Also SA was also motivated by fear of the nukes getting in the hands of the incoming leftist government, Israel does not have that fear.
Then there various secular narratives around the Jewish homeland, the rebirth (and Germany's redemption) after the Holocaust etc.
For western politicians, it seems far easier to chime in to the dehumanization of Palestinians and either paint the daily suffering there as "tragic but necessary", make fun of it or dismiss it completely - than to object to those stories.
This seems to work on a different layer than geopolitics, so I have doubts that a shift in geopolitics alone would change this. (I may be wrong)
Though maybe the changed perception of Israel after the Gaza war might change it.
That makes sense as a "subjective experience" (if there is something like the subjective experience of a people), but it fails the reality check for me.
Yes, Israel is the center of Jewish life today (New York coming next apparently), but I can't really believe that it genuinely is the safest place for Jews in the world today - not after the last years. Jews in the US or Europe were not at risk of being murdered by Hamas, hit by a missile from Iran or get conscripted in a war. Jews in Israel were.
> Most want peace but believe their Arab enemies do not.
Well, everyone wants peace in the "I won" sense. I don't see that most Israeli Jews want peace in the sense of living together peacefully with their neighbors.
(Neither do their neighbors, true - which is why I fault Israelis less here than the western allies who should apply force to both sides to deescalate and reconcile if they really wanted to end the conflict, but who instead only apply pressure to one side and unquestionably support the other side)
Their neighbours don't really have an option though. Stopping all resistance will not stop the settlers from harassing and chasing away the natives, and it will not force Israel to respect any border (which they took care of not even declaring). If anything, Palestinian resistance is functional to the progress of the occupation, so, if things get too quiet, a couple of killings or demolished homes keep the situation dynamic enough.
Unless you're counting on the moral authority of the Western nations that stayed silent or even financed and armed Israel while it was starving a population under blockade and bombings, murdering tens of thousands of civilians, killing hundreds of journalists, bombing hospitals and universities. Maybe they would say something if Israel killed and conquered a population that absolutely refuses to react. What do you think?
This honestly makes no sense for me. I live in Europe (Germany) and the discussion about antisemitism and Jewish life is front-and-center here. There are also several synagogues in my city. No one, not even the pro-Palestinian protesters wants them to go away - on the contrary, most protesters (from the left!) go out of their way to stress that their protest against the state of Israel is not hate against the Jewish people. In fact, lots of protesters are Jews themselves.
Who keeps conflating the two things and blurring the boundaries in public discussion are pro-Israel orgs.
Unfortunately, you're right that real antisemitism is rising. However all European states are taking a stance against that.
> There have been repeated attempts at peace...
You forgot the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.
Yes, did forget that one. Reinstatement of the prohibition to Judaism's holy sites, expulsion of hundred thousands of Israelis from the West Bank, and unlimited Arab immigration to the Jewish state. But it was a peace plan.
Edit: I'm still in shock you argued that 100,000 people in a population of 83.6 million is a lot - front and centre - but hand waved the forced relocation 500,000 people in a population of 10 million in a much smaller country as just the cost of peace.
> but hand waved the forced relocation 500,000 people in a population of 10 million in a much smaller country as just the cost of peace.
The West Bank is not part of Israel. And evidently the Israelis expect the same of 7 million Palestinians (if they aren't trying to annihilate them outright - see OP link of this thread).
> But it was a peace plan.
It still is. It was offered again several times, last time I believe by Qatar during the Gaza war.
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
Israel is without a doubt, the most dangerous place for Jews in the world. Not only is the entire country built on ethnically cleansed land (and thus Zionists have the indigenous population correctly trying to get them off the land), Israel has also attacked almost every country in the region and regularly receives missile attacks.
This blinkered view will reasonably leave you baffled and with a distorted world model, and a perception that people are stupid when they are actually seeing the bigger picture.
They are not family and often not even the same race. It’s a religious thing, but you only find two of the three religious alignments irrational, when these two are, at least in part, just reacting in response to the other.
Your analysis on nuclear use doesn't consider the lingering poisoning of people and land compared to conventional weapons. It's not Keyfabe. You would vastly prefer being attacked with conventional weapons.
If recent history is any indicator, UN isn't that structure; probably EU / G7 / BRICS & other such blocs are:
... we construct a new dataset covering all 43 very large mass atrocities perpetrated by governments or non-state actors since 1945 with at least 50,000 civilian fatalities.
This article introduces and summarizes these data, including an inductively generated typology of three major ending types: those in which (i) violence is carried out to its intended conclusion (37%); (ii) the perpetrator is driven out of power militarily (26%); or (iii) the perpetrator shifts to a different strategy no longer involving mass atrocities against civilians (37%).
We find that international actors play a range of important roles in endings, often involving encouragement and support for policy changes that reduce mass killings. Endings could be attributed principally to armed foreign interventions in only four cases, three of which involved regime change. Within the cases we study, no ending was attributable to a neutral peacekeeping mission.
There is no unanimous consensus on this issue at all.
Now after WW2, consensus is that the League of Nations may have outright caused WW2, and certainly contributed more than any other individual factor. The League of Nations was the embodiment of the treaty of Versailles. As if that wasn't bad enough, the League of Nations was also the league of nations that stopped most reactions against Hitler immediately before the war.
I'm not even going to bother drawing the obvious parallel with how the UN is treating nuclear powers, and people defending themselves against attacks by a nuclear (or trying-to-be-nuclear) power.
(VERY importantly, combined with a fundamental agreement on the value of human life, at least to some extent, between the 2 dominant powers Russia and the US and now China)
Not saying that a meeting room where nuclear powers have permanent presence isn't useful. But to say it is responsible for peace somehow is just crazy.
What is the lowest entity that can apply leverage? Regardless of what US or UN does or doesn't, you can start boycotting today.
I think the emergence of nation states with democratic institutions and a strong system of law is actually a hopeful precedent here. Somehow we got from a world of fiefdoms and lords that literally stood above the law to states with checks and balances. (Yes, we're sliding back towards the "fiefdoms" situation right now, but we're still far better than things used to be)
So I'm gonna be a starry-eyed idealist and keep the hope up that we might archive the same on a global level at some point.
Apply the Apartheid South Africa treatament. Gather the larger number possible of complying members, and apply a coordinated boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign to put pressure in the party engaged in genocide, ethnic cleansing or other abhorrent actions.
Sadly, it's unlikely because they care more about keeping immigrants out.
This is, IMHO, the big difference with enacting these kinds of policies to apartheid South Africa (mentioned a lot in this discussion). Lobbyism is very effective in this specific case.
And, of course, the problem is people don't agree. Turkey refuses to accept many of it's actions as genocidal (because that's how Turkey was created: when the last islamic state ("the Ottoman empire") got destroyed by Turks (who at that point were the ottoman army), they massacred a LOT of population groups, famously the Armenians but academics name more than a dozen separate genocides: Greeks, Kurds, Azeri, Jews, ...)
Oh and of course they kept doing it. Technically what Turkey did in Cyprus is also a genocide, and they have an active policy of replacing Kurd population groups but that's, if that's even possible, an even worse sore point.
The sad fact is that these genocides happened to gain territory. And, most of that territory, go look at Google Maps. This was mostly deep inland Turkey. And ... Turks obviously don't want it. There's no big cities there, and the more east you go, the less little towns, the less people, the less everything (except on the border). After the genocides what was a European landscape, a village every 5km or so is now empty. Hundreds of kilometers of nothing. Names on a map , with nothing or ruins below them. You don't really need a line to find the Armenian or Georgian border: where the farms begin, the rectangular fields, the villages, you've crossed the Turkish border. In other words: what repopulation the Turks did ... is a failure. And what little remains, mostly near the black sea, is losing young people at an astonishing rate. This is huge empty space, mostly ecologically destroyed land, not productive farmland. Not nature preserves. Nothing.
Also the reverse also doesn't apply. The UN may have trouble with Israeli actions, but where the UN took control to resolve the situation, where the UN took action, most famously southern Lebanon, it has not just failed but it systematically kept getting worse for 50+ years now. Whereas at least for Israel you can say: look at Tel Aviv. Look at Jerusalem. Look at Haifa. They really built something. Where the UN "helped" ... there's nothing.
Personally speaking, the is-it-a-genocide debate makes me tune out. It’s hyperlegal, clearly a moving target and selectively prosecuted by each side to the point of, often, absurdity.
If two people want to debate it, fine, but I have no obligation to pay attention. If we want to talk about harms and harm reduction, that feels more concrete and relatable.
And this veto nonsense needs to go away.
The only thing which counts is raw power and the means to deliver it. The US just got a lesson in its limits from the Iranian regime.
Countries with natural resources need their own defense against thieves like the US and its vassals. Libya, Iraq, Syria. Oil and no nukes. Fat use the UN was for them.
(Forget about the UN. Take a home owners' association. In due course a clique will take it over and corrupt it.)
And advocating for the dissolution and replacement of the UN due to it being ineffective is deeply ironic, because that's exactly what happened with the League of Nations, which led to the later formation of the UN.
You seem to be in an argumentative mood, but nothing I said is disagreeing with you about the ineffectuality of the UN.
1: The new nuclear powers should be included, I guess including N Korea, India, and Pakistan. And possibly Israel, if they admit to having them.
2: Rethink the whole thing. Are nukes really as important as everybody thought they were after WWII? If not, what should we look at to decide who to include?
That's not actually true, the 5 permanent seats on the UNSC were granted in 1945, well before any country aside from the US managed to develop nuclear weapons.
Those 5 countries did all eventually develop nuclear weapons and became nuclear weapon states under the NPT but that happened quite a bit later.
Possibly moreso. Nuclear sovereignty is demonstrably above the conventional type. At the end of the day, having a forum where nuclear powers with long-range delivery capability can veto things reduces the risk of them using that capability to veto in the real world.
By the range requirement, Tel Aviv and Pyongyang qualify for UNSC inclusion. New Delhi and Islamabad do not—they will mostly just nuke each other.
Out of the 9 current nuclear armed countries 5 have invaded another countries this century, and three of the most prolific invaders this century (Israel, USA, and Russia; each with over 3 invasions this century) are all nuclear armed. Out of the 4 countries which haven‘t invaded another country this century, two (India and Pakistan) regularly engage in border skirmishes and bombing campaigns. This leaves China and North Korea as the only two nuclear armed countries (out of 9) which don‘t regularly engage in foreign wars.
By our current experience, the proliferation of nuclear armed states is almost certain to end in a disaster at a previously unseen scale. We should be doing everything in our power to prevent this world of future horrors.
Not exactly.[0]
> and North Korea
Also not exactly.[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_invol...
and counted 3 or more invasions as prolific invaders.
But your parent is absolutely correct that China and North Korea also regularly engage in wars, though what counts as war and what counts as skirmishes is up for debate, I would count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%... as a war (I had just forgotten about it), ditto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Yeonpyeongdo_bombardment
That however just makes my point stronger.
in theory its better if you don't give veto power to great powers because they'll abuse it. in practice it's what keeps the fragile system that prevents WW3 from total collapse, as happened with the league of nations.
If not South Africa, who from Africa? Egypt? Nigeria?
The current composition of the UNSC is just ridiculous.
Australia would be a better option in either case since they are a continent in of themselves and within spitting distance from being a nuclear power after Biden fucked over the French and beat them to a deal for nuclear subs with Australia.
And re: Britain’s nuclear power being controlled by the US. That’s just the maintenance. They still have the nukes and could easily turn to France as the refurbisher if the US denies them. Might even work out as a conciliatory point for the return to the EU that Burnham is harking about.
While it maybe be true that some of the nukes in the UK(i.e. US B61 gravity bombs) may be under the control of the US, the UK still maintains full control over their submarine launched nukes AFAIU.